Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

STANDING ORDERS.

24.—(Deposit of Plans, Books of Reference, and Sections with Clerk of the Peace, etc.)

and a copy of the said Map, with the said Boundaries delineated thereon, shall also be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board," and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

26A.—(Deposit in case of Bills affecting Fisheries in England and Wales.)

Where, under the powers of any Bill, it is proposed to make, extend or enlarge any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary in England or Wales, or any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, a copy of so much of the Plans and Sections as relates to the proposed dam, weir, obstruction, or sewer shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board" ["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

30.—(Deposit of Plans in certain cases with Home Office and Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.)

Where by any Bill power is sought to take any churchyard, burial ground, or cemetery, or any part thereof, or to disturb the bodies interred therein, or where power is sought to take any common or commonable land, as the case may be, a copy of so much of the Plans, Sections, and Books of Reference required by these Orders to be deposited in the Private Bill Office in respect of such Bill as relates to such churchyard, burial ground or cemetery, common or commonable land, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November, be deposited at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a copy of so much of the said
Plans, Sections, and Books of Reference as relates to such common or commonable land shall, on or before the said day, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Amendment made: Leave out the word "Board" ["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

33.—(Deposit of Private Bills at Treasury and other Public Departments.)

(4) Of every Bill relating to railways, tramways, trolley vehicles, canals, gas, water, patents, or electric lighting, or for incorporating or giving powers to any company at the office of the Board of Trade;

(7) Of every Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise in England or Wales the making, extending, or enlarging of any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or of any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, or the abstraction of water from any river, at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.

Amendments made: In paragraph (4), leave out the word "water."

In paragraph (7), leave out the word "Board "["Board of Agriculture and Fisheries"], and insert the word "Ministry."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

253.—(Committee of Selection to choose Parliamentary Panel.)

The Committee of Selection shall select and propose to the House the names of not more than 15 Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners under the Procedure Act.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, to leave out "15," and insert instead thereof "25."
Standing Order 253 refers to the appointment of Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. Under this Order the Committee of Selection is instructed to form a panel of not more than 15 Members to serve on Commissions in Scotland to deal with Private Bills. It has been found by experience that 15 is rather too limited a
number. It has been found frequently that a number of the Members on that panel are disqualified, by reason of interest through their constituencies, from serving on particular Commissions, and it is thought that it would be wise to increase the number from 15 to 25. I hope also, by means of this Amendment, to increase the number of Members who will be interested in the efficient working of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act.

Amendment agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dumbarton Burgh and County Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Fords],

Considered; to be Read the Third time To-morrow.

LANARKSHIRE TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire Tramways," presented by Mr. MUNRO; Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday, 1st December, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MINISTERS (BRAZIL AND POLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cause of the delay in appointing a British ambassador to Brazil and a British minister to Poland?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The appointments are now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement if I put the question down again this day week?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot say for certain, but I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government's refusal to recognise or support General Wrangel was due to the fact that Wrangel was the instrument of the Russo-French Society for the exploitation of South Russia and the Crimea in which no British financial interests were involved?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative. As has been repeatedly stated, the decision of His Majesty's Government to give no further support to General Wrangel was made in June last upon his assumption of the offensive outside the Crimea.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Ford Privy Seal whether the Government has given a promise that those responsible for the ill-treatment of our prisoners should be brought to justice; and whether, if there is no method except by going to war by which the Russians who were responsible for the atrocious treatment of the prisoners in their hands at Baku, it is now the intention of the Government to forego the promises they had made, and that, therefore, no punishment is to be insisted upon, but that, on the other hand, trade negotiations are to be reopened with Russia without demanding reparation for the sufferings which were borne by our prisoners of war in the hands of the Russians?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am not yet able to add anything to the replies which have already been given on this subject.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reply which he made last week that it was impossible, unless we go to war, to get any reparation for these prisoners? Is it the intention of the Government to turn these people down altogether, and to turn our backs on the agreement that was previously made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of no agreement that has not been fulfilled. Unless by means of a trade agreement or an arrangement of the kind, there is no power to put pressure on them except by going to war.

Sir F. HALL: Would not it be possible to put a Clause in the agreement that those responsible for this state of affairs should be brought to justice?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will give a full opportunity of dealing with these questions if the House desires it, and that will afford the proper opportunity of debating them.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISAS (UNITED STATES).

Mr. R. McLAREN: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the sum charged for visas in this country to go to the United States of America, and from the United States to this country; if a head tax is charged before entering the United States, and, if so, the amount; and if any tax is levied on persons leaving the United States of America, and, if so, the sum charged?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Visas to enter the United States of America are granted in this country by United States Consular officers, and the fee charged by the United States Government for such a visa is at present ten dollars. The fee charged by His Majesty's Government for a visa issued by a British Consular Officer in any foreign country to enable a foreigner to enter the United Kingdom is 10s. for a single journey or £1 for a number of journeys within a period of one year. British subjects require no visas to enter this country. I understand that a tax of eight dollars is levied on every alien entering the United States, subject to refund in certain cases, as laid down in the United States Immigration Regulations. I have no information as to any tax being levied on persons leaving the United States.

Mr. McLAREN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this excessive charge of about £4 4s., according to the present rate of exchange, is causing great dissatisfaction among people who have to go to America; and will he see that the matter is looked into and the balance adjusted, or, better still, the whole system abolished?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of this subject in its entirety being brought up at the Conference at Geneva?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As my hon. Friend knows, it has been considered recently in Paris by a Committee of the League of Nations, and their recommendations are now under consideration.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that citizens of this country visiting the United States, if they do not stay so long as 60 days, are entitled to a refund, and that, when that refund is paid, it is only about one-fourth of the amount taken from them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I was not aware of that, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. JONES: I have had that experience myself.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that representations have been made through the British Ambassador at Washington with regard to this very high charge made by the American Government for visas?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I did not say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ACTING RANK.

Colonel YATE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that acting rank is granted in areas in which active operations are in progress, and is at present given in Waziristan, he will favourably consider the question of granting it with retrospective effect to officers of the Army serving with troops in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Turkey, and the Black Sea?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): Acting rank is granted to officers serving in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Turkey, and the Black Sea under the conditions laid down in Army Order 286 of 1919, which Order came into force as from 1st August, 1919. The question whether the same measure of acting rank which is granted to officers serving in Waziristan should be extended to Mesopotamia and the Black Sea is at present receiving consideration.

Colonel YATE: May I ask how much longer it will be under consideration?

OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Colonel BURN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War why an officer who, before the War, commanded a battalion for four years, and who rejoined and served as a brigadier throughout the Great War, is not allowed to count the latter service for increase of pension?

Major MORRISON-BELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if officers who have served for many years before the War, some of them in command of battalions, and have then immediately rejoined on the outbreak of the War, and have served in some cases continuously throughout the War, are not allowed to count this war service towards the assessment for pension; and, if not, if he will reconsider their position?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: These officers were, I presume, in receipt of retired pay, and drew it while serving in addition to their ordinary pay. They cannot count the period of war service for an increase of retired pay, though that service entitles them to re-assessment of their retired pay on the new scale under Army Order 324 of 1919. I might add that the rank of Brigadier-General does not carry any special rate of retired pay.

WARLIKE OPERATIONS.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of wars or warlike operations in which British troops are now engaged?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): At the present moment British troops are engaged in warlike operations in Mesopotamia, Persia and on the Indian frontier. Very disturbed conditions also prevail in Ireland. Entire peace has not been restored in the neighbourhood of Constantinople.

Mr. E. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers the state of affairs in Ireland to be a state of war or a state of rebellion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a state of rebellion, but it involves the hardships of warfare on the troops.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask when the Supplementary Estimate caused by these operations to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is likely to be laid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know for certain, but it is really a matter for my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) to settle with the Leader of the House. I should think, however, that it will be when the legislation which is now being disposed of in this House has gone up to the House of Fords—as soon as that is got out of the way. That is my opinion.

Colonel YATE: May I ask again, as the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the hardships of war are entailed on the troops in Ireland, whether it is not a fact that if the troops had been under service conditions, the lives of those unfortunate officers who were killed the other day would have been saved?

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the trouble on the Indian frontier?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that question, but operations of a minor kind have been in progress on the Indian frontier throughout the last few months—the usual disturbances with the Pathan tribes

Sir H. BRITTAIN: As there is no state of war in Palestine, why is it necessary to keep so many troops there?

CAIRO (GENERAL HEADQUARTERS).

Captain R. TERRELL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of transferring General Headquarters in Cairo from the Savoy Hotel to Abbassia; what further sum it cost a few weeks later to move it back to Cairo and place it in the Eden Palace Hotel; and what rent is now paid for this hotel?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have now received a report from Egypt, which goes to show that each move was made from motives of economy. The move was made from the Savoy Hotel because the rent was raised to £700 per month. The cost of the alterations at Abbassia Barracks necessitated by the transfer was £360. Besides the rent of the hotel other considerable savings were effected. On the other hand when at Abbassia charges for transport to and from Cairo were heavy. When therefore the Eden Palace Hotel became available, the opportunity was at once taken to save these charges by returning to Cairo. The rent is just over £200 a month, with three months' notice after 12 months.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it these hotels are still required in view of the fact that they were used for ordinary tourists before the War, when we had a considerable force there?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should require notice of any details, but obviously there are a number of troops at headquarters at Cairo much beyond the ordinary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is it necessary to take large hotels?

MONTHLY EXPENDITURE, NEAR EAST.

Major HAYWARD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Constantinople which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?

Major ENTWISTLE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Mesopotamia which was not included in the estimates recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?

Mr. KENYON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Palestine which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?

Mr. RAFFAN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any capital expenditure for military purposes in Egypt which was not included in the estimate recently given of the monthly rate of military expenditure there; and, if so, what is the estimate for this capital expenditure in respect of the present financial year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; the rate of current cost given to the hon. Member for Wigan on 26th October was exclusive of capital expenditure on works and land. The latest estimate of expenditure under these heads during the current financial year is:—

Mesopotamia and North-West Persia
£1,000,000


Constantinople
125,000


Egypt
90,000


Palestine
900,000

I may add that the total of these figures is considerably less than the amount provided in the current year's estimates for these services.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will these figures of capital expenditure fall upon the British taxpayer, or will they be charged upon the revenues of the countries concerned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the first instance they will fall on the British taxpayer. Some arrangement must be made to shelter the British troops from the sun and from the cold. I cannot avoid it. I put it off month after month and greatly reduced the expenditure which was contemplated this year. As to the expenses, some day it may be these Dependencies will assume the burden.

Mr. LAMBERT: Why should the British taxpayer be burdened with a cost of something like £900,000 of capital expenditure in Palestine?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the £900,000 largely on account of the railway connecting the Egyptian State railways with Jerusalem, and will not the eventual cost be charged to the Egyptian State railways and the Palestine State railways respectively when the whole matter is wound up?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope it may be so.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do the particulars The right hon. Gentleman has given of Mesopotamia include any expenditure for sheltering troops in Northern Persia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A certain amount of hutting has been provided to enable the men to survive the winter in Northern Persia.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will any of this capital expenditure be recovered from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

WAR GRAVES (WIDOWS' VISITS).

Mr. JESSON: 4.
asked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the fact that thousands of widows whose husbands fell in France during the War are unable to visit that country to see their husbands'
graves, owing to their pecuniary position, he will consider the possibility and the advisability of the Government granting the necessary funds for these unfortunate widows to be taken to France and provided with the necessary accommodation as the guests of the nation; such widows to be selected after consultation with local war pensions committees?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on this subject generally on 18th November last in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to which I am yet unable to add anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

TROOPS (WAR FOOTING).

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now considered the question of placing the soldiers serving in Ireland on a war footing; and what decision has been arrived at?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 15th instant in reply to a question by the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Higham).

Colonel YATE: May I ask whether, if the troops had been under service conditions, the lives of those unfortunate officers who were killed the other day would have been saved?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Will the widows of soldiers killed in Ireland be entitled to the same pensions as the widows of soldiers killed in the Great War?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There is a question on that subject further down on the Paper.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the estimate given of the present monthly rate of expenditure on the forces in Ireland, namely, £1,150,000, covers the cost
of the compensation given in respect of public buildings and private houses which have been hired for the use of the troops; and, if not, what is the estimated expenditure on this compensation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, the figure given is estimated to cover expenditure on these services.

SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).

Captain LOSEBY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to give the House an assurance that soldiers wounded in Ireland during the present troubles will have exactly the same pension rights as soldiers wounded in the late War?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Until 30 days after the official end of the War, which has not yet been announced, soldiers are fully assured of the same pension rights as though they had been wounded in the late War. The position which may arise in the event of cases occurring after that date is receiving careful consideration.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will the same privilege be extended to the police?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That ought to be addressed to another Department.

OFFICERS' QUARTERS.

Captain LOSEBY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the conditions at present existing in Ireland, officers are compelled to live in barracks in numbers greatly in excess of that for which proper quarters are available; and if, as a solatium for the consequent discomfort, he will consider the advisability of authorising the issue of field-service allowance, or, alternatively, having the value of each officer's quarters assessed, and returning to each officer the balance of the lodging money to which he would be entitled if living outside barracks?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am aware that the increased number of officers in Ireland must involve restricted accommodation, but officers know, and the Regulations provide, that special exigencies may render it necessary to allot quarters of less extent than usual. I regret it is not possible to grant field or other allowances, nor to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's alternative suggestion.

MUNITIONS (CAPTURE).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many field guns, aeroplanes, machine guns, and rifles, and how much ammunition, have been captured by the rebel forces in Ireland from the military since 1st January, 1920?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The following munitions have been captured by the rebels in Ireland since 1st January last: Machine guns, 1; Hotchkiss, 2; rifles, 199; revolvers, 142; ammunition, 66,385 rounds; rifle-grenades, 2; Mills grenades, 2. No field guns or aeroplanes have been captured.

Commander BELLAIRS: Do those figures include those we have recaptured?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether they are gross or net.

GALLANTRY (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to issue any special medal or decoration in recognition of the many acts of signal devotion and courage performed by members of the military and police forces in Ireland in resisting the campaign of murder and assassination in that country instigated by the Sinn Fein leaders?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The gallantry and devotion of the troops and police in Ireland are gratefully recognised both by His Majesty's Government and the nation, but it is not considered that the issue of a special medal, as suggested in the question, is desirable as a mark of that recognition.

CROKE PARK, DUBLIN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any further information about the killing and wounding of about 80 civilians, including women and children, at the Croke Park Football Ground last Sunday; how many volleys were fired into the crowd; how long the firing continued; and whether any inquiry will be held, and by whom?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Following account has been compiled from report made by police
and military, after very careful investigation.
The round-up and search of spectators attending a football match at Croke Park, Dublin, on Sunday afternoon, was carried out by the authorities according to a preconcerted plan with the object of securing Sinn Fein gunmen, who had taken part in the assassinations of that morning of 14 British officers and who, in some cases, were believed to have come into Dublin under cover of attending this match in the afternoon. Events at the football ground go to show that this belief was well-founded; that a considerable number of men among the football crowd were carrying arms is proved beyond doubt. Their presence and their efforts to escape had effects of fatal consequence to a number of innocent people, and police were detailed to surround the ground, and to search. It had been arranged that after the military had surrounded the field, an officer should announce to the crowd through a megaphone that a search was to be made by the police, and that no anxiety need be felt by innocent persons.
The police force approached the neighbourhood of the field while the military were encircling it, but before the military cordon was complete the police were observed by civilians, who had evidently been specially posted to watch the approaches to the field. The police were fired upon from two corners of the field. Simultaneously, men rose from their places on the grand stand, and fired three quick shots with revolvers into the air. Of this there is indisputable evidence. It seems quite clear that these shots were a pre-arranged signal of warning to certain sections of the crowd. A stampede was caused not by the firing alone, which caused considerable alarm, but also by a rush of men seeking to make their escape from the field. They hurried mostly to one side of the field, where a corrugated iron railing was the only barrier to be surmounted. Through its fall a number of people were crushed Meanwhile, the armed pickets outside joined, no doubt, by gunmen escaping from inside the ground, were maintaining a fire in the direction of the police, who returned the fire. The firing lasted not more than three minutes. About 30 revolvers, thrown away by men who had formed part of the spectators, were picked up on the ground. Twelve per-
sons lost their lives, 11 were injured seriously enough to warrant their detention in hospital, and about 50 persons sustained slight hurt. These casualties include perfectly innocent persons, whose death I deeply regret. The responsibility for them, however, rests entirely upon those assassins whose existence is a constant menace to all law-abiding persons in Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many eye-witnesses are pre pared to swear that no shots were fired at the police? Is he also aware that the so-called pickets were men selling tickets outside the field? Does he justify firing into a struggling mass of people, including women and children—

Mr. MOLES: What about the "so-called" revolvers?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: —in an attempt to pick out a very small minority of armed men?

Mr. E. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain at what stage of the proceedings it became necessary to turn a machine gun on the people, and how it happened that a little boy ten years of age was bayoneted to death? Was that done by gunmen?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that any machine guns were used, nor do I believe that a boy of ten was bayoneted. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU never do!"] I have stated, in answer to the question, the facts which have been put before me. I believe they are accurate. It is impossible for the Government to lay down rules governing the action which the police and military are compelled to undertake in the necessary duty of searching for arms.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the statement just made, and ascertain if it is true, and will he report the result in the House?

Major BARNES: When the right hon. Gentleman says that these proceedings were carried out as a result of a preconcerted plan, may I ask whether that plan was formed after the murders in the morning, and in the period which
elapsed between the murders and the carrying out of the plan?

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the condition of the officers who were wounded? Are they going on all right?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will answer that question at once. My latest information, I am glad to say, is that none of the gallant men who were wounded are other than improving.

Major BARNES: May I have an answer to the question I asked?

Mr. SPEAKER: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as the official statement issued declared that revolvers were taken from persons at Croke Park, no persons in possession of them were arrested?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement to the House that the Government were aware that attacks were to be made on these officers, from information received, by men under the cloak of a meeting at Croke Park? If that be so, can he explain why the officers were allowed to remain in private houses and hotels? May I also ask whether any shots were fired from the aeroplane which was hovering over Croke Park?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will ask my hon. and learned Friend to put down those questions.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is impossible. (Cries of "Order!") May I ask then if the right hon. Gentleman will look into the terrible allegation that a British soldier bayoneted a boy ten years of age? No one can believe it. It is a terrible thing for anyone to say it has happened.

Mr. KELLY: What about the shooting of pregnant women?

MURDER OF OFFICERS (ARRESTS).

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the murder of many British officers in Dublin during the week-end, he will take steps to arrest a similar number of known leaders of Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Volunteers,
and will forthwith bring them to trial for high treason as the initiators of rebellion and assassination in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A large number of arrests of leading Sinn Feiners have been made since the massacre of Sunday last. Continuous searches are being made for the instigators of the recent murders and for the actual assassins themselves.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I will raise this question to-morrow in the course of the Debate.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: How many arrests have been made in connection with the murders during the week-end?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A very large number of arrests have been made. I cannot at this moment give an analysis of the charges that lay against the many scores who have been arrested.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in nearly every case these outrages have followed the arrest of innocent people in Ireland, because of their political opinions?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

INTERNATIONAL POSTAL CONVENTION.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General when the decisions of the International Postal Convention will be announced and when the new rates for postcards and circulars in this country will come into operation?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The International Postal Congress will probably complete its revision of the Postal Union Convention by about the end of the present month or early in December. I will make an announcement on the subject of both inland and foreign postal rates as soon as I am in a position to do so.

WIRELESS NEWS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES.

Mr. HURD: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made with the wireless system which the Government is developing for news and commercial services?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A series of experiments were recently made to test
the feasibility of distributing news messages from a central distributing station by means of wireless telephony. The general result of the experiments was satisfactory as far as audibility of speech was concerned; but, owing to the slow rate of transmission, due to the necessity for frequent repetitions, and to the fact that the messages could be easily intercepted, the news agency on whose behalf the experiments were made has not seen its way to adopt the use of the system. It was also found that the experiments caused considerable interference with other stations, and for the present the trials have been suspended. Experiments are, however, being made to test the practicability of using high-speed wireless telegraphy for news and commercial services, and promising results have been obtained. The development of the system is receiving the special attention of my technical advisers.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what interest the Government has in this matter—exactly what is the purpose of this?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The development of the Service.

Mr. MOLES: Are the representations which have been made with reference to the extension of greater facilities for a Press service to Ireland receiving attention, or does the right hon. Gentleman take up a non possumus attitude in the matter?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will consider that.

LABOURER'S DISMISSAL, NORWICH.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. C. Ready, recently employed as a labourer at Norwich; whether he is aware that this man is a discharged soldier who was badly gassed in the War; and whether, in view of this fact, he will have inquiries made into the case of his dismissal, and, if possible, have the man reinstated in his old position?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This case has received full consideration in connection with memorials on his behalf which were submitted by the Post Office Engineering Union. His employment in the Post Office was terminated for good reasons,
and after giving full weight to his Army service. I regret that I cannot see my way to authorising his re-employment.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is it not a fact that a great deal of correspondence has taken place between the Postmaster-General and these people—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a supplementary question?

Mr. EDWARDS: I was not reading it. The hon. Member is a little too previous.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the House the name of the official responsible for the admitted blunder in printing the index letters in the telephone book close to the binding instead of at the head of the outside columns, and thereby causing the public the greatest inconvenience?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The current Telephone Directory is the first to be issued under new printing arrangements, and the error in question is the result of a misunderstanding between the Post Office and the printers. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the subject further.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: With all deference, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not consider that a somewhat poor excuse? Surely the Post Office possesses officials of some kind to revise work that comes from the printers, before it is passed?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: A mistake has been made, and all I can say is that it is not a Post Office official who is responsible.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Post Office cannot change its printers?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is there no official who is responsible for supervising documents before they are issued to the public?

Mr. MOLES: Is it not a fact that this issue was made by a State-owned printing office.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I have a reply to my question?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: They are supervised as a rule, certainly, but in this case I do not think the book was supervised after it was bound.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I shall put this question again in a week's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased cost of living, the Government will reconsider the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Pensions, on page 19 of their Report, to the effect that pensions should be readjusted yearly to meet variations in the cost of living?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full reply which I gave upon this subject on the 16th June last to the hon. Member for the Western Division of Derbyshire.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that a large number of Members of this House are anxious to press economy on all sides on the Government, and do not wish to see any increase in Government expenditure?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the cost of living has risen considerably?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid my hon. Friend must have forgotten what happened in the House when the recommendation of the Committee was strongly opposed by those who spoke in the name of the pensioners themselves.

MENTAL CASES UNIDENTIFIED.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a photographic gazette of all unidentified ex-service men who are inmates of mental hospitals is being prepared; if so, when it will be ready; and how it will be distributed?

Major ENTWISTLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is a fact that a number of unidentified ex-service
men are at the present time inmates of lunatic asylums and mental hospitals; and, if so, will he at once arrange for the publication of a journal containing photographs of these men and issue it to the general public in the hope that some of these men may be identified by relatives and friends?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I will answer these two questions together. I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting the unfortunate impression, which seems to be prevalent, that there are many unidentified ex-service men in mental institutions. The fact is that of all the male patients admitted since the 1st August, 1914, to county and borough asylums in England and Wales, only four are at present unidentified; and of these two are over 60, one over 50 and the other is about 16 years of age. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wigan on the 17th November, stated that there is no unidentified soldier in the mental hospitals under the control of the War Office; and, so far as my Department is aware, there is no unidentified ex-service man in any other mental institution.

Dr. MURRAY: Does that apply to Scotland or only to England and Wales?

Major TRYON: I have not had the whole of the returns from Scotland, but there is little hope that any such cases will be found in Scotland.

GLUTTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

Mr. HURD: 68.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the statement of the clerk to the Clutton guardians to the effect that it was only after a correspondence extending over 19 months, during which he, the clerk, wrote 40 letters respecting the case, that the Ministry of Pensions accepted liability for payment of the sum of £7 13s. Poor Law relief granted to an ex-Guardsman whose pension was reduced and who was certified as being unable to work; and what steps are being taken to expedite matters of this kind in the future?

Major TRYON: The circumstances of this case were quite exceptional, but, nevertheless, my right hon. Friend agrees that the final settlement of the guardians'
claim was unduly delayed. My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that in the unlikely event of a similar case arising in the future, it will be dealt with promptly.

Mr. HURD: May we know what steps have been taken to prevent that sort of thing recurring?

Major TRYON: We are at the moment making inquiries to find out who is responsible for the mistake that has occurred.

CHESHIRE REGIMENT (SERGEANT B. W. MEE).

Dr. M'DONALD: 69.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Acting-Sergeant Bernard W. Mee, No. 26453, 3rd Cheshires, was accepted by the Army on 25th May, 1915, in category A1, that he was discharged from the Army on 18th May, 1917, as unfit for service, and that he died on 2nd December, 1918, leaving a widow and one child, who have no means of subsistence, owing to the widow's delicate health, and that she has been refused a pension, and will he in quire into this case?

Major TRYON: This case was very carefully considered by the medical advisers to the Ministry, who found that the disease which caused this soldier's death commenced after discharge, and was not connected with service. The widow appealed against the consequent refusal of pension, and the Pensions Appeal Tribunal by which the appeal was heard, confirmed the finding of the Ministry and disallowed the claim.

MEDICAL BOARDS, ULSTER.

Mr. DEVLIN: 70.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to transfer the medical boards in connection with the Ulster region of the Ministry of Pensions from the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast, their present headquarters, in the centre of the city, to Hilden Convalescent Hospital, which is on the out skirts of the city; whether it would be most inconvenient for the disabled men to have to travel so far to be examined, as the long journey would cause unnecessary suffering, and the expense in tramway fares would be very great; and whether, as there has been no complaint regarding the present arrangement, he will take steps to cancel the proposed transfer?

Major TRYON: The Commissioners of Public Works are responsible for the provision of accommodation for this Ministry in Ireland, and I understand that in the interests of national economy the Grand Central Hotel, which at present accommodates both the Ulster Regional Headquarters and the Ulster Medical Area Boards, must be vacated as soon as possible. As the medical boards are not likely to continue indefinitely at their present strength, the heavy capital expenditure necessary for the purchase of a building or site in the centre of the city cannot be justified, and as I am informed that suitable premises cannot be obtained on a short lease the provision of temporary hutting upon a vacant site offers the best solution.
It was first proposed to place the huts on the Old Asylums ground, which is centrally situated, but the Belfast Corporation declined to let the site, and in default of a more central site the Commissioners of Public Works have the Hilden Convalescent Hospital grounds under consideration as an alternative. I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as a definite decision has been reached by the Commissioners. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that compensation for loss of time and travelling expenses may be claimed by the pensioners.

Major O'NEILL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this convalescent hospital is several miles from the railway stations, and cannot he take some steps, in the interest of men who perhaps have great difficulty in walking, to obtain some kind of accommodation for these boards nearer in?

Major TRYON: That is what we are hoping to do, to get some site, and we shall be glad of any assistance that either hon. Member can give us, by the use of their influence in order that we can get suitable sites offered, as I entirely agree that we want a site which will avoid this difficulty, but I would remind both my hon. Friends that if these men were seriously ill and under treatment, there would be no question of a medical board.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the City Council of Belfast to give a grant of land or some building for this purpose—a lease of land?

Mr. MOLES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a deputation of Ulster Members waited on him three weeks ago suggesting to him an alternative site and that consideration of it was then promised? Has nothing been done since?

Major TRYON: We want to get a site, and we are doing all we can to get one. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friends on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

MONTHLY RATE OF EXPENDITURE (NEAR EAST).

Mr. GALBRAITH: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Mesopotamia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Mesopotamia is approximately £82,000.

Mr. KILEY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Constantinople?

Mr. CHURCHILL.: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Constantinople is approximately £4,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any hope of reducing this Air Force expenditure at Constantinople?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am entirely in the hands of the Great Powers in the matter. We have a certain force there which must be provided with its quota of aviation.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Royal Air Force in Egypt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Egypt is approximately £80,500

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The present monthly rate of expenditure on the Air Force in Palestine is approximately £18,250.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUARTER SESSIONS APPEALS (COSTS).

Major BARNES: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, if any, remedy remains for a person winning an appeal to Quarter Sessions to whom costs are not awarded; and, if no remedy, is it proposed to amend the law on this point?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The law allow Courts of Quarter Session discretion as to whether a successful appellant shall be given costs or not, and I do not contemplate proposing any legislation to interfere with that discretion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL TRIALS (DELAY).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has had under consideration the hardship, long-continued imprisonment, and pecuniary burden which may be imposed, under the present procedure, upon persons committed for trial upon what is found to be insufficient evidence; and whether he pro poses to submit to the House any legislation which would give compensation for such hardship?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not see my way to propose any such charge on the public funds as the right hon. Member suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD ADOPTION.

Viscountess ASTOR: 30.
asked the Home Secretary how far progress has been made in drafting proposals dealing with child adoption; and when he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to them?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that the Committee which I appointed in August to consider this question are now drafting their Report, and hope to present it before very long. I cannot make any statement as to legislation at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN REGISTRATION (SAMUEL LEVITT).

Mr. CAPE: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if he will inquire into the case of Samuel Levitt, who was brought up at the Thames Police Court on Monday, 27th September, 1920, for failing to register as an alien and not being in possession of an indentity book; and whether, in view of the influential petition from the Tottenham Hebrew congregation which has been laid before him, and the fact that this young man was not under any obligation to register as an alien, seeing that he is still liable for service in His Majesty's forces, he will order his release from Brixton Prison and allow him to surrender to his unit to be dealt with by the military authorities?

Mr. SHORTT: I am inquiring into the case and consulting the War Office with regard to the position of Levitt, who has been a deserter from the Army for more than two years, but until my inquiries are completed, I cannot accept the view that the prisoner was under no obligation to register and set aside the magistrate's order for his detention in custody.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CARS (POLICE CONTROLS).

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Home Secretary how many controls were in operation in the Metropolitan police area between a.m. 20th November and p.m. 22nd November for the detection of offences against the speed limit for motor vehicles; how many controls were in operation for the detection of driving to the common danger; how many police officers were employed and with what success in each case, respectively; and how many cases of dangerous driving were reported by the police on ordinary or point duty in the same period?

Mr. SHORTT: During the week-end, a.m. 20th November to p.m. 22nd November, two controls were in operation to detect infringements of the speed limit, six officers being employed, and five cases were reported for prosecution. Nine controls were operated to detect cases of dangerous driving, etc., eight officers being employed, but no such cases were reported. Two cases of dangerous driving were detected by police on ordinary duty, and one by police on point duty.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOUNTED POLICE, LONDON.

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what are the duties upon which mounted police officers are employed in the main thoroughfares of London?

Mr. SHORTT: The principal duties on which the mounted police are employed in the streets are in escorting processions, regulating and supervising traffic generally, and seeing that slow-moving vehicles are kept to the side of the roadway. Their services in this connection are particularly useful at busy crossings, where they are in a better position than the foot police to keep the traffic under observation and to ensure that the various bye-laws and regulations are observed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 36.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Treasury Regulations have been issued under which loans have been made to small holders under Section 29 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Treasury have not so far issued Regulations, but the periods of repayment and rate of interest for loans made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland under Section 29 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, have been prescribed by the Treasury and are operative.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Regulations will be issued, and is not delay to the disadvantage of smallholders?

Mr. MUNRO: I hope there will be no avoidable delay.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 37.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the progress that has been made in building up district institutions under Section 16 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919?

Mr. MUNRO: The Board of Agriculture are forming a district credit institution in the North of Scotland for the principal crofting counties. Such an institution will have to be built up partly of co-operative societies, which will be formed on the
new settlements. It is apparent, therefore, that it cannot come into being immediately. There will, however, be no avoidable delay in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that credit facilities are equally desirable in other parts of Scotland as well as the crofter counties, and can he say if steps will be taken to introduce them there as well?

Mr. MUNRO: I shall bear that in mind.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 40.
asked the Secretary for Scotland how many land settlement schemes have been inaugurated in Scotland during last year, and how many schemes have been abandoned during the same period?

Mr. MUNRO: During the last year the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have had under consideration 102 land settlement schemes. Of these, 51 have been sanctioned and 43 abandoned.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the abandonment of those 43 cases?

Mr. MUNRO: I think probably lack of funds.

Major M. WOOD: May I ask when the Cabinet Committee which is considering this question is likely to finish its deliberations?

Mr. MUNRO: The draft Report was under consideration yesterday and I hope that the Report will be presented to the Cabinet at an early date.

Dr. MURRAY: Could not some of the money which is being used to settle Jews in Palestine be used to settle Highlanders in the Highlands?

TEMPERANCE ACT (POLLING).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 38.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the recent voting under the Scottish Temperance Act the town and county clerks, instead of issuing the requisition forms to bonâ fide electors demanding the same in terms of the Act, issued such forms to sundry associations believed to be financed partly by American extremists and partly by one or two war millionaires who deem it right and a set-off to their continued retention of their war-created wealth to endeavour to
limit the liberties and pleasures of their poorer fellow citizens; whether the officials and canvassers of these associations then engaged themselves in securing signatures to such requisitions and to that end indulged in misrepresentations of the issues to the voters whose signatures they sought; whether cases of forgery and unauthorised attachment of other people's signatures have occurred; and whether, in view of these irregularities, tending to defeat the true purposes of the Act, he will instruct local authorities to issue requisition forms only to bonâ fide electors and to refuse to issue forms to associations and others who merely borrow their names as a disguise to enable them to enforce their own extreme views?

Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information which supports the vague and, at the same time, serious allegation contained in the second part of the question. As regards the third part, I understand that a conviction has been obtained in one such case. Whether there have been others, I am unaware. As regards the last part of the question, I have no reason to suppose that local authorities are in need of any instructions from me of the nature suggested.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with the names of municipal authorities who have issued requisition forms to those associations, will that satisfy him that the first part of the question is correct?

Mr. MUNRO: I shall be very happy if my hon. Friend will make the question less offensive and more precise.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask if it is not the fact that the trade also had some of the best and principal speakers for the trade in Scotland imported from America?

Mr. MUNRO: I believe that is so.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the head of the "dry" movement in Scotland was not a very distinguished officer of the British Army?

Mr. MUNRO: That is so.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it possible to have Members of Parliament imported from America?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (OFFICIALS).

Major GLYN: 39.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what is the total number of officials employed by municipal and county authorities in Scotland; what was the total number in April, 1914; and how many and what proportion to the whole of these officials have been appointed to administer schemes concerned with housing and education since January, 1919?

Mr. MUNRO: I regret that I have not the information necessary to enable me to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Major GLYN: Will these figures be made available in the next census?

Mr. MUNRO: The Return which the hon. Member desires would be a very elaborate one and would involve a great deal of trouble and time.

EDUCATION ACT.

Sir J. D. REES: 41.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Education (Scotland) Act will be so amended as to grant relief in respect of the excessive assessments of parochial rates on country districts for the sake of urban secondary schools, the parents of children in which are generally able and willing to pay?

Mr. MUNRO: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, this is a matter on which I am at present in conference with my colleagues in the representation of Scottish constituencies.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: Is it not the case that, as a rule, the rates in rural districts are lower than in urban districts, and that the want of educational facilities up to now has led to rural depopulation; that the object of this Act is to give something like equal opportunity; and further is it not the case that the community, as taxpayers and in other capacities, have contributed to, and are now supporting, universities, at which many Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir. J. D. Rees) and myself, have received a large measure of free education?

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether a rejoinder and a surrejoinder will be allowed after that speech?

Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. Friend will put down his question, and I shall then be able to give a more satisfactory reply.

STEAMER SERVICE, STORNOWAY.

Dr. MURRAY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Rural Transport (Scotland) Committee appointed by him in February, 1918, reported that increased steamer accommodation was required on the route between Stornoway and the mainland, and that, in addition to the daily services instituted 40 years ago, an additional steamer was required for coastal services in Lewis; whether, instead of increasing the steamer services as recommended by the Committee, the Government have reduced the existing services by one half; and whether he can state when the Committee's recommendation is to be carried into effect?

Mr. MUNRO: The Committee recommended that the services mentioned in the first part of the question should be instituted in place of the services existing when they reported. The latter were below the pre-War level, and, after consideration of the recommendations, some improvement has been effected by restoring the six-day service by the mail steamer during the summer months. The reduction of the pre-War services, there-for, only applies to the winter months. For the reasons stated in the answers given to my hon. Friend on the 26th of October and on Thursday last, I regret that the restoration of the six-day service during the winter months cannot be contemplated at present. It is not possible for me in present circumstances to give any undertaking with regard to the suggested coasting steamer.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not the fact that the Committee advised this addition in addition to the previous daily services, and not in addition to war services?

Mr. MUNRO: The Report of the Committee speaks for itself.

Dr. MURRAY: I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Did not the Committee make other recommendations which have not been carried out?

Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible to carry out all the recommendations in two months.

Dr. MURRAY: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that from December to the middle of March Stornoway is the centre of an extensive herring fishing in which hundreds of boats from various ports in England and Scotland are engaged; whether he is aware that when the daily mail service between Stornoway and the mainland was instituted this great winter fishing was non-existent; and whether, in view of the greatly increased business of the port due to the winter fishing, he will take steps to have the daily service restored immediately in order to avoid great inconvenience to the community?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question asked by him on the 26th October.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY CLERKS, GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that temporary clerks in various Departments of the public service who never served in the recent War, and who are over 21, have been receiving 11s. a week, and are now receiving 13s. 6d. a week, more than temporary clerks under 21 who served in the War, and who are doing precisely the same work as the clerks over 21; why a man under 21 who served in the War should be less well paid for the same work than a man over 21 who never served; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of things?

Mr. BALDWIN: The arrangement under which the rate of pay of temporary male clerks (whether they served in the War or not) rises at certain ages was reached by agreement with the Staff Associations concerned, and I am not prepared to disturb it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Should not some advantage be given to those who have served in the War and have taken up
temporary clerkships under 21 over those who have never gone to the War at all?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is a very complicated matter, but I think that the settlement that has been arrived at, after long discussion with the Staff Associations, must be maintained. If we begin to make exceptions we shall get into difficulty.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the legal Members of the Government be paid on the same principle?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken to prevent the execution of the Hungarians who had served as commissaries under the Soviet Government of Hungary, and who remained in Hungary after the fall of that Government on the assurance from Allied representatives that they would be protected?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is no part of the duties of His Majesty's Government to interfere in the conduct of judicial proceedings in foreign countries, and I would earnestly deprecate the attempt to impose on His Majesty's Government responsibilities in such matters which they have neither the desire nor the power to assume. The hon. Member is aware that His Majesty's Representative at Budapest has instructions to watch carefully proceedings in political trials in Hungary, and that more than one occasion has been taken to impress on the Hungarian Government in a friendly way the importance of proceeding with proper moderation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of an arrangement at which Sir Charles Cunningham was present that these people stayed in Hungary and that it was agreed that all political prosecutions from either right or left should cease?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No actual undertaking was given by His Majesty's High Commissioner or on behalf of the Allies, but representatives in a friendly way have had a very useful effect on more than one occasion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not a very specific promise given by the representatives of the government in
Hungary that these people should be safeguarded?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have gone into it very carefully, and no specific undertaking was given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Another scrap of paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIA.

Sir J. D. REES: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether any further subventions by the British taxpayer on behalf of Armenia and the Armenians are contemplated?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday on this subject by the Prime Minister.

Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks in this behalf of the Noble Ford the Member for Hitchin (Ford Robert Cecil)? If so, do the Government govern the delegates, or the delegates govern the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have read the remarks of my Noble Friend. As to the last part of the question, my experience is that everybody thinks he governs the Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin is not a delegate of the Government at all, but of South Africa?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course that is so, and obviously my Noble Friend has every right to express his views.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the word "delegates" quite wrong? Are not they representatives, and not delegates?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERBIA (BRITISH LOANS).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether over 20 millions have been lent to Serbia; and, if so, what were the terms upon which such loan was made, when that sum is repayable, and what, if any, securities are held in respect thereof?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Serbian Government received loans amounting to approximately £21,000,000 during the War, for which they have undertaken to deliver obligations, dated the 1st January, 1920, and bearing 5 per cent.
interest from the date. The Serbian Government have further received advances for relief, since the Armistice, amounting to approximately £1,500,000, for which they undertake to deliver 6 per cent. Bonds as from the dates of the advances. The above obligations have not yet been actually deposited.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is any security offered to Montenegro in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOATING DEBT (REDUCTIONS).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is still of the opinion that a proportion of this year's revenue will be available for the reduction of the floating debt; and, if so, how much?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I see no advantage in attempting a fresh estimate of the exact amount at the present time.

Sir F. HALL: Is that after taking into consideration the reduction that will be recoverable from excess profits?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.

Mr. HAYDAY: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any representations have been made by the Agricultural Organisation Society in respect of the decision of the Development Commission to stop the special allotments subsidy to that society; if so, what action has been taken regarding these representations and whether any deputation has been or is proposed to be received from the society on the matter; and for what reason the Development Commission decline to receive any deputation from other bodies to protest against the continued payment of public funds to the Agricultural Organisation Society?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Development Commissioners have not at any time recommended any special grant from the Development Fund towards the allotments branch of the Agricultural Organisation Society, but special grants which have now been discontinued, were
made during the War by the Board of Agriculture. In July last the Commissioners considered an application from the society for a grant in aid of the branch, and hear representatives from the society. They were unable, however, to recommend a grant, and after considering further representations from the society they have decided to adhere to their former decision. The society did not ask that a deputation should be received regarding this further application. With regard to the last sentence of the question, I am informed that the Development Commission have not declined to receive any deputation to protest against grants being made to the society. They received deputations of the kind from the National Union of Allotment Holders in April, 1920, and the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants in March, 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. McDONALD: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue instructions to the collectors of Income Tax to the effect that they must render a complete statement of all amounts due by Income Tax payers at one time, and not, as is the present custom, extending the notices over a period of weeks?

Mr. BALDWIN: I assume that the case which my hon. Friend has in mind is the case in which a taxpayer has several sources of income—possibly in different parts of the country—and therefore receives a number of demands for the payment of Income Tax. The issue of more than one demand in such circumstances is a necessary corollary to the system of taxation at the source which, as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, is the vital factor in maintaining the yield of the Income Tax.

Mr. McDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while in many cases, one envelope with two enclosures would be quite sufficient, on the other hand, no fewer than three envelopes and six enclosures have been sent to different individuals? If that were avoided, there would be a great saving to the country?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will note what my hon. Friend proposes.

Mr. T. WILSON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased amount of income that is exempt from Income Tax, employers in industries in which the standard rate of wage is below the amount exempted from tax are still called upon to make quarterly returns of the amount earned by each employé?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, from which he will see that, following upon the new Income Tax graduation, Section 105 (1) (b) of the Income Tax, 1918, has been amended, £150 being substituted for the previous figure of £130. The employers' ordinary returns of their employés' earnings are now not required to include cases in which the remuneration does not exceed £150 for the year or, in the case of the quarterly returns of weekly wage earners is less than £37 10s. for the quarter.

Mr. WILSON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and make it quite clear that a married man is entitled to certain abatements?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that is generally known.

Mr. WILSON: Could there not be stated on the return the amounts that married men are entitled to?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that that would throw a great burden of work on the employer I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the financial commitments which the Government will undertake if the Anglo-Persian agreement is ratified by the Persian parliament?

Mr. BALDWIN: The agreement which was laid before Parliament in 1919 (Command 300) provides for a loan of £2,000,000 at 7 per cent., of which one moiety will be provided by the Government of India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by being "laid before Parliament"? We were not asked to ratify this agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS TO ALLIES.

Mr. G. THORNE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any amount additional to the £18,000,000 voted in Vote 10, Unclassified Services, Sub-head A, has been granted to any ally since the publication of the Estimates; (2) whether he can state the names of the allies to whom loans are made, Vote 10, Unclassified Services, Sub-head A, and the amount which is paid to each?

Mr. BALDWIN: The advances made from Sub-head A of the Vote for Loans to Allies are in respect of remanets, or adjustments, arising out of the War. The actual advances in the current year to date are as follow:—



£


To France
4,318,492


To Italy
110,000


To Belgium
13,000


To Serbia
414,744


To Roumania
5,214


Total
£4,861,450


Further advances will be necessary before the close of the year, but I anticipate that the total will be well within the voted sum.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any contribution has been made to the Greeks in Anatolia?

Mr. BALDWIN: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SUGAR.

Mr. HOGGE: 71.
asked the Minister of Food whether in numerous cases in recent weeks the Sugar Commission has sanctioned the cancellation of orders for sugar; whether the Commission refused to allow Messrs. George Mellis and Son, Limited, of Aberdeen, to cancel an order for 100 bags of sugar; whether on this firm insisting on cancellation the Commission intimated that it was instructing refiners to make no further deliveries to them; and, if so, whether the Commission can justify their unfair and oppressive treatment of Messrs. Mellis?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, to the second and third parts in the affirmative. I see no grounds for the suggestion that the action of the Sugar Commission in compelling the performance of a contract was in the circumstances of the case either unfair or oppressive.

Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend say that the Sugar Commission has not sanctioned cancellation?

Mr. McCURDY: No. I say that the fact that in some cases the Sugar Commission may see fit that the contract should be cancelled is no ground for making it a rule to cancel all contracts.

Mr. WATERSON: 78.
asked the Minister of Food if he can make a statement as to sugar de-control?

Mr. McCURDY: I am unable at present to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. WATERSON: When may we expect a statement?

Mr. McCURDY: The matter is at present under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a statement at no distant date.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Cabinet discussed this matter?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes.

Mr. LAMBERT: May we expect that sugar will be de-controlled within a reasonable time?

Mr. McCURDY: Oh, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that sugar will not be de-controlled for an unreasonable time.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us think that he has unreasonably controlled sugar up to now, and is he aware that the public consider that sugar would be cheaper if his activities were to cease?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes. My attention is constantly being called to criticisms of the character indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that most careful attention is paid to those criticisms, and I trust that where they are well founded we profit by them.

Captain TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman no idea at all when his Ministry will be closed?

REGIONAL ORGANISATION.

Major BARNES: 72.
asked the Minister of Food what was the average monthly cost of maintaining regional food controllers and their staffs in the year ending 31st March, 1920; and what is the average monthly cost to-day?

Mr. McCURDY: The average monthly cost of the Regional Organisation in the year ending 31st March, 1920, was £100,000. The average monthly cost to-day is £30,000. Every effort is being made to effect further economies, and as a result of these I hope to reduce further the monthly cost to £10,000 by February, 1921.

Captain TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the figures which he has just given us include the cost of the buildings which these regional food controllers occupy?

Mr. McCURDY: If my hon. and gallant Friend wants particulars, I shall be glad of notice, but I am under the impression that I am giving the entire cost.

Mr. WATERSON: 77.
asked the Minister of Food how many divisional food Commissioners there are in existence; the total cost of the same; whether there has been any reduction in the number of such officers during the last 12 months; and, if so, how many?

Mr. McCURDY: The Regional Organisation of the Ministry of Food originally comprised 10 divisions in England, three in Scotland, and two in Wales. The three Scottish divisions are at present grouped in one, and a reduction of one division in England has been made by the combination of the London and Home Counties divisions. There are at the present time 12 Commissioners in all, at a total annual cost of £11,900. Certain changes are in contemplation during the next three months, which will enable me to effect further economies, but while the staffs can be, and are being, progressively reduced, the areas cannot, in my opinion, be usefully enlarged.

CHINESE FLOUR.

Mr. WATERSON: 73.
asked the Minister of Food whether he can state the amount of Chinese flour in. this country and also
the amount due to arrive; if the Scottish Association of Master Bakers in a letter to the Ministry, on 27th October last, declared that this class of flour had been tested and a microscopic examination of the starch cells show that the flour was made from unsound wheat; in view of this declaration is he prepared to consider professional millers' opinion on such matters as affects the staple food of the country; and, if not, what methods is he prepared to adopt to safeguard the health of the community?

Mr. McCURDY: In reply to the first part of the question, the quantity of Chinese flour held to the account of the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies in this country is 36,600 tons, and a further quantity of 48,400 tons is due to arrive. With regard to the remainder of the remainder of the question, I may state that in accordance with the regular practice of the Wheat Commission this flour was subjected on arrival to expert examination, and the results were satisfactory. It is true that an insignificant quantity arrived in damaged condition, but no part of that quantity has been allocated for use for human consumption.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this flour is condemned by every miller in the country?

Mr. McCURDY: No, I am not.

BREAD.

Mr. BRIANT: 76.
asked the Minister of Food whether there is any prospect of a reduction in the price of bread this year?

Mr. HOGGE: 79.
asked the Minister of Food whether the price of the loaf will be reduced in view of the fall of wheat prices; and, if not, whether this is due to the refusal of the Wheat Commission to cut its losses?

Mr. McCURDY: In reply to these questions, I can only refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

IRISH DEBATE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has
agreed to the postponement of the Irish Debate fixed for to-morrow, and, if so, what business he proposes to take instead?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that there was any agreement for the postponement. The day was given by me because it was asked for. We did not ask for it, and obviously if it is no longer asked for, we do not press it. It is not our business. If the right hon. Gentleman, and those with whom be acts, do not wish the question to be pursued in this House, then—as nobody would desire to have a late sitting to-day if it can be avoided—I propose not to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule for the Agriculture Bill, but if it be not finished, to make it the first Order to-morrow, and to take subsequently some other small Orders, including the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason which has actuated those who desire not to have the Debate to-morrow is that the present moment does not offer a really suitable atmosphere for debating this grave subject, and that it is desired to have the Debate next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not wish to have any unnecessary controversy with my right hon. Friend, but I do not in the least agree. As a matter of fact, I think that the reality which has now been made plain to the House and the country makes this a suitable time for the discussion. I would remind my right hon. Friend also that I read in the papers this morning that the Irish Question is to be discussed at Birmingham by Sir John Simon and by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and if it be suitable for the platform plainly it is equally suitable for discussion here.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I may tell my right hon. Friend that, under the circumstances he has indicated, we ask for the day to-morrow.

Mr. BONAR LAW: On the whole I think my right hon. Friend has taken a wise decision. I presume that notice of motion will be given.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not customary, before a day is fixed, that the convenience of the parties asking for it should be consulted? Is he aware that I asked for the day, that I did not ask for it to be postponed, and that I am delighted the Debate is coming on?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There seems to have been some misunderstanding. My Noble Friend near me (Ford E. Talbot), who has been in communication on this subject with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, was led to believe that that hon. Member was speaking for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was informed by the Chief Whip that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division had a public engagement in the country long since entered into, and that I had stated that the day was not suitable? However, we are now prepared to have it, no matter whom it suits.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. No such reason was given to my Noble Friend for the postponement.

AGRICULTURE BILL.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I just ask a question about a notice of Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House relating to the Agricultural Bill for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule to-night? May I ask him not to sit late to-night—certainly not after twelve o'clock—since most important Amendments, especially in the Schedule, relating particularly to Scotland, would otherwise come on in the small hours of the morning, and those Amendments were not debated in Committee. Under these circumstances, will

he agree that the House shall not sit after twelve o'clock to-night?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am sorry I could not agree to that. I understand the Scottish Clauses will be reached quite early. In any case, I think it is essential that this Bill should pass through all its stages in this House this week, and go to another place next week. There is no other way of finishing the Bill this Session.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: I assume the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill will be taken first Order on Thursday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is the intention.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the Agriculture Bill goes late, is it the intention of the Government to take the contract for the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown? There is a matter of controversy on that, and several are interested in it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told it is necessary to get that this week, and in that case we must take it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it the intention of the Government to take at an early hour in the morning the Motion to set up a Committee to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament? It would be an inopportune moment to do so.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not understand my right hon. Friend's question. I should have thought, with his knowledge, he would have known that if it be objected to, we cannot take it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Agriculture Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 72.

Division No. 370.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Briggs, Harold


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Bruton, Sir James


Atkey, A. R.
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Blair, Reginald
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Butcher, Sir John George


Barnston, Major Harry
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barrand, A. R.
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Casey, T. W.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bridgeman, William Clive
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Clough, Robert
Jesson, C.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Johnstone, Joseph
Pratt, John William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Purchase, H. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reld, D. D.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Remnant, Sir James


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Davidson, J.C.C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Donald, Thompson
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Seddon, J. A.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lorden, John William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Duncannon, Viscount
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Edge, Captain William
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Simm, M. T.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Falcon, Captain Michael
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Steel, Major S. Strang


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Macmaster, Donald
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Stewart, Gershom


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Gardiner, James
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sutherland, Sir William


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macquisten, F. A.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Magnus, Sir Philip
Taylor, J.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Mallalieu, F. W.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Gould, James C.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Matthews, David
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Grant, James A.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Moles, Thomas
Tryon, Major George Clement


Greig, Colonel James William
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Turton, E. R.


Gretton, Colonel John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morris, Richard
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard
Morrison, Hugh
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wason, John Cathcart


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Mosley, Oswald
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Neal, Arthur
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Higham, Charles Frederick
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hinds, John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nield, Sir Herbert
Winterton, Major Earl


Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Wise, Frederick


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parker, James
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hurd, Percy A.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pearce, Sir William
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Perring, William George



Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Cape, Thomas
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Galbraith, Samuel


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Glanville, Harold James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Devlin, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Donnelly, P.
Grundy, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)




Hallas, Eldred
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hayward, Major Evan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tillett, Benjamin


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Tootill, Robert


Hirst, G. H.
Rendall, Athelstan
Waterson, A. E.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Wignall, James


Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, East)
Robertson, John
Williams, Col. p. (Middlesbrough, E)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Kenyon, Barnet
Royce, William Stapleton
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Sexton, James
Wintringham, T.


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Sitch, Charles H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Spencer, George A.



Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Swan, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Myers, Thomas
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. A. Short.

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER: informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of a Member:

Police Court, Bow Street, W.C.2,

19th November, 1920.

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that I have this day convicted Cecil John L'Estrange Malone, Member of Parliament, of an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment in the second division.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "and "Hurrah!"]—Notice of appeal has been given against this conviction, and a recognisance entered into by the defendant with sureties for the due prosecution of such appeal, and the defendant has accordingly been liberated pending the appeal.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

CHESTER JONES.

The Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.

BILLS PRESENTED.

LITTLE LONGSTONE CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL,

"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel and Trust-Property in the parish of Little Longstone, in the county of Derby," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL,

"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the charity called the Hulme Trust Estates (Non-Educational)," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL,

"to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain charities," presented by Sir GODFREY COLLINS; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 215.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee E.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No 216.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

MESSAGE FROM THE FORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the port and harbours of Greenock." [Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill [Fords.]

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee E (in respect of the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee E (in respect of the Unemployment (Relief Works) Bill): Sir Montague Barlow, Sir William Bull, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. Frederick Green, Sir Henry Harris, Captain Moreing, Mr. Munro, Mr. John Murray, Major William Murray, Mr. Neal, Captain O'Grady, Lieut.-Colonel Pinkham, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Myers, and Colonel Wedgwood; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Graham, Mr. Hallas, and Mr. Hayday.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 13.—(Compensation to Landlord for Deterioration of Holding.)

Where a landlord proves, to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under the Act of 1908, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding, that the value of the holding has been deteriorated during the tenancy by the failure of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator may award to the landlord such compensation as in his opinion represents the deterioration of the holding due to such failure.

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, after the words last inserted, to insert the words
Provided that no compensation shall be awarded where the landlord has failed to satisfy the arbitrator that he drew the attention of the tenant in writing during the tenancy to such failure on the part of the tenant to cultivate the holding according to the rules of good husbandry and the terms of the contract of tenancy, and that he gave the tenant a reasonable opportunity of remedying such failure.
The object of this Amendment is to protect the farmer and ensure that the landlord only gets compensation if he has warned the tenant and satisfied the arbitrator that he has warned him as a tenant in writing that he has not farmed according to the rules of good husbandry or has broken the contract of tenancy, and the tenant has been given some reasonable opportunity of remedying such failure The Amendment is one of substance. It is necessary to protect the tenant farmer in this way, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): In the discussion on this Clause we have shown that we wish to make it as far as possible correspond with Clause 10. Clause 10 compels the landlord to pay compensation for continuous good farming to a tenant. This Clause com-
pels the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord where by continuous bad farming he has deteriorated his holding. In Clause 10 there is no such provision as the one which is now proposed by my hon. Friend, and I do not think, therefore, any such provision could be of service in Clause 13. I realise it is intended to protect the tenant, but it might be very hard on the landlord. The landlord might not be aware, and therefore might not have a chance of giving notice, and if he had a chance of giving notice there might not have been time for the tenant, between the notice and the termination of the tenancy, to remedy his bad farming. I think we must stick to the principle that the Clauses should correspond as far as possible, and therefore I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to answer his question. The principle that the two provisions should coincide is, I am sure, the right one. Does he mean to carry that out by accepting the next Amendment on the Paper?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I do.

Mr. ACLAND: That would put it on all fours.

Amendment negatived.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, at the end of Clause 13, to insert the words
Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case unless a record of the condition of the holding has been made under this Act or in respect of any matter arising before the date of the record so made.

Mr. ACLAND: I think there will be some Amendment needed to bring it into practical conformity with the Act of 1908. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the words were inserted in the other Clause.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my right hon. Friend is right, but it would be rather difficult to devise the proper words here, but I will make a note of it and, if possible, get it put right in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether he could put in the Act of 1908?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is what I said. I accept the Amendment as it stands, and undertake that the application of these words shall be reconsidered elsewhere.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions for expediting and reducing costs of arbitrations.)

(2) On an arbitration under the Act of 1908 the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit—

(a) make separate awards in respect of the several claims referred to him; and
(b) make an interim award for the payment of any sum on account of the sum to be finally awarded.

(3) A rule made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to his Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent thirty days on which that House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.

Major STEEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fit," to insert the words "and shall if required by either party."
The object of this Amendment is that, if either party to one of these arbitration cases wishes it, the arbitrator shall be compelled to make a detailed statement. I know that an Amendment on similar lines was proposed in Committee stage of the Bill, and it was not accepted by the Government. But I do hope that, on consideration, the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept this Amendment, because it is only fair that, when claims which are lodged under various heads, those claims should be dealt with by the arbitrator in a detailed manner, and that the arbitrator should not simply award a lump sum, but say how that lump sum which he has awarded is arrived at by giving the various details.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. It seems to me a most reasonable request that the arbitrator, when he has several claims referred to him, should make an arbitration in respect of each claim. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment. I think it is quite reasonable and quite in accordance with the ordinary practice of a Court of Law.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I think the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have overlooked the powers the arbitrator has under the Schedule to the Act of 1908. It must be remembered that under Clause 10 of the Schedule to the Act of 1908 it is provided that the arbitrator shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter subject to the award. All that the Amendment does beyond what is already provided for is in substance this: to require that the arbitrator shall make a statement.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not possible that if these words are not put in this Clause, and it is left as it is, that it may be held that this Clause over-rides the Act of 1908, and that therefore the Act of 1908 does not apply so far as relates to the proceedings of the arbitrator under this Act? That is what I am afraid of. If it is as my right hon. Friend suggests, it would be better to leave these words out altogether and rely on the other Act.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Before making up his mind on this my right hon. Friend might consider the words of the right hon. Baronet, and if it does not over-ride it, it can be left as it is. Do not let him give a hasty answer to it now.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am prepared, in response to the question of the hon. Member opposite, to count ten before I give my decision lest it should be too hasty. Having counted that number, I am prepared to give my answer. These two Acts are to be read together, and there is no question, therefore, of one overriding the other. We have provided that the arbitration shall take place in accordance with the Act of 1908, and in accordance with this Schedule. Therefore as the matter stands at present, we have got the benefit now of Clause 10 of the Schedule of the Act of 1908, under which, on the application of either party, the amount is to be specified. What is felt is this: with regard to some of these claims which are to be made by the landlord or tenant, it may be that some matters are very easy to decide, and on which there can be an immediate award, and the arbitrator would no
doubt adopt this procedure. But where an award in favour of one party might, on the whole, on balance be wiped out by an award in favour of the other party—in such a case it would be unwise to make such an award. This power to make separate awards may be of use in particular cases, but in general inasmuch as there is power already to ask for specific items to be dealt with, and that power still exists, I think it would be unwise to try to alter this Clause in the manner suggested in the Amendment and to insist upon separate awards being given. The Bill leaves it a matter of discretion.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I know it is not the practice of arbitrators to specify the different items in their awards to the great inconvenience of those concerned. As I read the Act of 1908 it says that the arbitrator on the application of either party shall specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter under his award. As I understand the position the arbitrators take up, it is that they only give these particulars after they have made their award. The Amendment of my hon. Friend would require the arbitrator at the request of either party to specify every item in his award which would be most useful. I do not think it is done under the Act of 1908. The arbitrators do not give the particulars much to the annoyance of the parties concerned. I should support most strongly the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It would give us a much better system of arbitration.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 16.—(Resumption of Part of Holding by Landlord.)

Where after the commencement of this Act the landlord of a holding gives notice, in pursuance of a provision in that behalf contained in the contract of tenancy, of his intention to resume possession of some part of the holding, the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section twenty-three of the Act of 1908 (but not including the proviso thereto) shall apply as if the notice were such a notice to quit as is mentioned in that Section.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words
Provided that in assessing the compensation payable to the tenant the arbitrator shall take into consideration any benefit or relief allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of any land resumed in pursuance of such provision.
This is merely an Amendment that the arbitrator should take into consideration any benefit which has been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy in respect of land resumed in pursuance of such provision. Sometimes when the land has been taken away, further compensation has been given by the landlord for the benefit of the tenant, and that matter should be taken into consideration when the award is made. I beg to move the Amendment,

Captain FITZROY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept it. Under the existing system hitherto with regard to these notices to quit, when a landlord gave notice to quit a portion of the holding for whatever purpose, the tenant had a right to claim that the whole of the holding should be taken. The Government have introduced into this Bill in Sub-section (a) of Section 5 of Clause 7 a provision under which, if a landlord gives notice to his tenant up to 25 per cent. of his holding, he will only have to compensate him for that amount of the holding which he takes.
I am quite clear in my own mind that the bargain of which we have heard so much in regard to compensation paid to tenants included the proposal that any notice to quit part of the holding, let us say for the purpose of establishing allotments or small holdings, in which there was an agreement in the lease, and such arrangement existed between the landlord and the tenant that the landlord should be able to take part of the holding, that under these circumstances the landlord should not have to pay compensation. I am quite certain in my own mind that was part of the agreement made which has been mentioned with regard to compensation to be paid to tenants to whom notices to quit have been given. That being so, this particular Clause, Clause 16—if that was part of the agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me—Clause 16 appears to me not to be necessary, because it is only putting into the Clause what we agreed should not be in the Clause, and this Amendment is necessary unless the right hon. Gentleman agrees to omit the Clause altogether. That is my recollection of what took place.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question of leaving or not leaving out this Clause, to
which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, hardly arises on this Amendment. It would have been open to my hon. and gallant Friend to move his Motion a little earlier on the Paper to omit Clause 16, or the same point practically would have arisen if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) had been moved. In this case, if that Amendment had been moved, I should have been very glad to say something about it, but we are now dealing with the matter of taking into consideration the allowance in assessing compensation and any benefits or relief's which have been allowed to the tenant under the contract of tenancy. That Amendment I am willing to accept, subject to reconsideration of the actual wording in another place.
Perhaps now I may be allowed to reply on one or two other points. There was a certain arrangement made in respect of Clause 7, in which Clause there is power taken for the payment of compensation in cases where, under the Act of 1908, the land is resumed for certain specific purposes, allotments, small holdings, and so forth. There was a difference of opinion in this. Under that Clause part of the holding, and only part, is taken. It was agreed that under those circumstances compensation for disturbance should be paid. There was not a full record kept of that particular meeting at which this arrangement was come to, and there was a perfectly honest and perfectly bonâ fide difference of opinion as to what really was decided My recollection was that under the circumstances compensation for disturbance was to be paid. My hon. and gallant Friend and others think the decision was that it should not be paid. I cannot at this stage say for certain which it was. Several hon. Members who are present are of an opposite opinion to my hon. and gallant Friend. At all events, however that may be, Clause 7 has been passed in the form that compensation for disturbance shall be paid. That being so, it seems only reasonable that the same plan should be adopted in respect to this Clause. This Clause refers to the case where part of the holding is taken under the contract of tenancy. Clause 7 (5, d) refers to the case where the part is taken under the provisions of the Act, but not under the con-
tract of tenancy. If you pay compensation for disturbance in the one case, it seems to me only right and proper that you should pay it in the other.

Mr. PRETYMAN: One is a contract, the other is not?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am merely explaining the Amendment, which would have excepted payment for disturbance under the contract of tenancy, which has not been moved.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if the Amendment we are discussing were withdrawn, it would be in order then to put in a proviso similar to the Amendment standing the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood). There is an impression, and an erroneous impression, among a good many Members of the House that on the Report stage they can not move an Amendment which is not in their own name. Possibly it was owing to that that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon was not moved. As there appears to be some doubt as to whether the undertaking was or was not given by the Government—in regard to that Amendment may I suggest, subject to your approval—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I briefly say that no undertaking whatever was given by the Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: There was a misunderstanding, and may I suggest, with your approval, that if this Amendment is withdrawn the earlier Amendment could be moved.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Government are prepared to accept the proviso standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), I shall raise no objection to the Amendment which is now before the House being withdrawn, and then we might go back. But I feel very strongly against this Amendment being withdrawn, and then going back to another, if it is going to be a contentious Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could not accept the earlier Amendment. I have good reasons for that, but I am not in a position to state them now. Even if this Amendment, which I am prepared to accept, were withdrawn, and the other proviso were moved, I could not accept it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: This is a very important point. It was through a misunderstanding that the point was not raised a while ago. The matter is very important. Of course, it can be raised in another place, but it is very much more desirable to have it discussed here. It is not only a question of whether a notice causes a breach of contract, but it is a question of a great deal of land which is now temporarily let for development purposes at short notice, on the distinct understanding that it may be resumed for development purposes at short notice, and this under the existing agreement. Exactly where we stand in this Bill is a matter of reference. It is very difficult to know. I certainly desire to raise the point, and I understood it would have been raised on this Amendment. We do not want to have two discussions on the same Clause.

Mr. E. WOOD: I understand from my hon. Friends that the discussion that has taken place on this Clause has been taken on the Amendment that is now before us. I only rise now because I am told by my right hon. Friend behind me that the reason—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: May I interrupt my hon. Friend for one moment? I have no objection whatever to discussing the Amendment. In fact I accept discussion. I do not want to burk it. You said, Sir, that you were prepared to go back if I were prepared to accept the withdrawal of the Amendment. That is another matter. I cannot accept the earlier Amendment, but I am perfectly willing it should be discussed.

Mr. PRETYMAN: On this actual Amendment may I raise a point which it is important should be raised? It is practically universal that where land is let in the manner described it is expected to be taken at short notice, and can be taken at short notice under agreement for purposes of development, and when that consideration is given; and because of that it is let at a lower figure than it would otherwise be let for continuous and ordinary tenancy. It is a temporary letting, and as such is often let at a very low figure. A consideration of that kind would be a consideration which would come under this Amendment, and I suggest that that point might be raised upon it.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Government are willing to accept the Amendment what is the use of prolonging the discussion upon it?

Mr. PRETYMAN: I wanted to ascertain exactly how far consideration could be given in this Amendment. If it met the point I should be perfectly satisfied. If the Minister will tell us, in this Amendment we are now discussing, if he can give us an assurance in accepting the Amendment that the arbitrator would be able to take into account the whole of the conditions, and whether the land was let at something below its full economic rent for the full tenancy, that would go a long way to meet my objection.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is difficult for me to say exactly at the moment; but I rather think the relief would be covered in the way my hon. Friend has just said. Might I, however, suggest that we should accept these words, and then leave the matter for the consideration of my Noble Friend in the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, I quite expected it would be raised on Clause 7. It has not been so raised, and there is a difference of opinion as to what the agreement was. That is my view. Personally, I think the whole matter should be considered in a perfectly open manner, and the Government are in no way bound. Meantime, I propose to accept these words, and I will draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the matter, and tell him there was a difference of opinion as to what was the arrangement.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland a question or two with regard to the application of this Act to Scotland? In my experience it is quite a common thing that a farm near a town should be let with this proviso, that if any portion of the farm is required for building—that is to say, if what we call feting in Scotland shall take place, the farmer shall receive in respect of the small portion of the farm which is resumed, in addition to the compensation for unexhausted manures, and so forth, the reduction of his land to a certain figure which is mentioned in the lease. It is usually a figure higher than the rate per acre he is paying. That is a very common arrangement in my country. I should like to ask
the Secretary for Scotland to tell us the application of this particular Clause in such a case. It is a very common case.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think we can deal with the application Clause now, because that question can be discussed when the Clause comes up. We are now dealing with an Amendment to the Clause.

Sir A. SPROT: I think this Amendment, if it is adopted, would clear up the point which I have tried to put before the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I hope the Secretary for Scotland will be able to give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, because we are really in a fog in this matter.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): It is quite impossible for me to be in two places at the same time, and I cannot reply to a question which I have not heard.

Sir A. SPROT: My point is that in Scotland farms are often subject to the proviso that if a small portion of the farm is taken for feuing there shall be given to the tenant when that is done, in addition to compensation for unexhausted manure, a reduction of his rent at a certain rate per acre, which is usually rather higher than the rate he is paying per acre for the farm. My question is whether the compensation for disturbance would apply under such a contract, and whether the Amendment which is now proposed would relieve the owner from the payment of compensation for disturbance in addition to the other things which he would have to pay for.

Mr. MUNRO: As far as I understand the question, it seems to me that a complete answer to it is given by the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. Under that proviso the arbitrator is bound to take into consideration any benefit or relief under the contract of tenancy. That seems to me to entirely cover the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks there is any Scottish peculiarity involved, I shall be happy to discuss the point on the Scotch Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: At the end of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) This Section shall not apply in relation to a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand what this Amendment means, but I think we might have some little explanation of it.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it is a little unusual, when I move an Amendment which is a concession, that I should be asked to explain the Clause. Honestly, I think my right hon. Friend ought to make himself acquainted with the meaning of the Clause.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have tried to, but I cannot.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In a case which was decided not long ago, there was a holding where the tenant on a farm could not recover compensation for improvements because the whole of the property leased did not come within the definition of a holding under the Act of 1908. Where there is a holding, part of which is not agricultural and does not come within the Act of 1908, the tenant cannot get compensation for the part which is agricultural. The decision in this recent case has put the matter in a worse position than it was before. The Clause provides that provision as to compensation now applies to a part of the agricultural holding as if it were a separate holding, but it does not apply to anything which is not agricultural. We are covering, by this particular Amendment, cases where there has been a previous contract of tenancy arising.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Record of holding.)

If the landlord or tenant of a holding at any time during the tenancy so requires, a record of the condition of, and the rights and interests of the parties in, the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the holding shall be made by a person to be appointed in default of agreement by the Minister, and in default of agreement the cost of making any such record shall be borne by the landlord and tenant in equal shares.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words, "and the rights and interests of the parties in."
Here we are dealing with the record of the holding, and it is one really under Clause 10 to enable us to have a record of continuous good farming or continuous bad farming. In Committee it was found convenient, in addition to putting down the condition of the farm, such as fences, cultivation and so on, that there should also be specified the rights and interests of the parties in the farm. That is to say, if the tenant holds certain properties they should be specified in the record. At first I resisted the Amendment, but I finally accepted it, subject to it being re-drafted. All I am now proposing is to leave out the words, "and the rights and interests of the parties therein," and I shall afterwards propose the addition of further words which are on the Paper. Then I think we shall have a clear and comprehensive definition of rights and interests.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I would like to know is he quite clear that this will really cover the rights and interests of the parties.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have taken the best advice I can, and I am told that the words I am proposing is a really exhaustive definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "holding" ["the cultivation of the holding"], insert the words
and if so required by the tenant a record of any existing improvements executed by the tenant or for which the tenant is, under Section seven of the Act of 1908, entitled to claim compensation, and of any fixtures or buildings which, under Section twenty-one of that Act, the tenant is entitled to remove."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Repeal of Section 4 of the Act of 1908.)

Section four of the Act of 1908 (which relates to agreements as to compensation for improvements comprised in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act) shall be repealed:

Provided that this Section shall not affect the operation of any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move to leave out the words
Provided that this Section shall not affect the operation of any agreement entered into before the commencement of this Act.
I desire to remove what would be an injustice in this Clause. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1908 it is provided that where any agreement in writing secures any improvement under the First Schedule for fair and reasonable compensation, having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making the agreement that compensation shall be substituted for the compensation under this Act. What I suggest is that the circumstances at the time of making the agreement under the Act of 1908 cannot be compared with the circumstances of the present day. The cost of everything has gone up to such an extent that the schedules substituting compensation are grossly inadequate, and they should not be confined to agreements made after the passing of this Act. For these reasons I move this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment. Not only have many of these valuable manures gone up in price, but a great number of them are practically unobtainable.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think it is possible for the Government to accept the suggestion which is made in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will observe that this Clause is founded upon a paragraph in the Selborne Report. I can understand an argument that you might leave out the Section altogether, but what the hon. and gallant Member is proposing to do is to make this repeal retrospective. Supposing landlords and tenants have made agreements with one another under which the landlord has consented to certain improvements being undertaken by the tenant and they are effected on certain terms. Under those circumstances could the hon. and gallant Member go so far as to say that such an agreement should be made inoperative in order that the tenant may get a great deal more than if he carried out his improvements on the certain basis, and that he should receive so much compensation and more. It seems hard that the landlord should have put upon him an increased burden of this kind. The hon. Member might say that if the Amendment had not been made there would be a possibility of getting a great deal more out of the landlord, but, on the other hand, the landlord might have said, "I would never
have agreed unless I had some idea as to what my liability would be." There is a possibility of a very much larger claim being made, and I think we should keep in these words in order to safeguard the position of the landlord. It is quite impossible to leave out these words because they are necessary to maintain the status quo under the fresh system which is coming into force.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 22.—(Notices to quit.)

(1) Notwithstanding any provision in a contract of tenancy to the contrary, a notice to quit a holding, including an allotment garden, shall be invalid if it purports to terminate the tenancy before the expiration of twelve months from the end of the then current year of tenancy; but nothing in this Section shall extend to a case where a receiving order in bankruptcy is made against the tenant.

(3) This Section shall not apply to—
(b) any notice given by a corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other undertaking in respect of any land acquired by the corporation for the purposes of their undertaking where possession of the land is required by the corporation for those purposes; or
(c) any notice given in pursuance of a provision in the contract of tenancy where such resumption of the holding or any part thereof is for the purposes defined in the said contract in respect of which resumption of any part of the holding may be obtained; or
(d) any notice given before the com men cement of this Act.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "including an allotment garden."
5.0 P.M.
The words "including an allotment garden" are unnecessary in view of an Amendment to tb.3 first Schedule, which I propose to move later. Then, when we get to the Re-committal, there will be a Clause dealing with allotments as a whole, and I hope that that will be dealt with later on in the evening. When we reach it, other changes will have to be made, but this particular Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, b), after the word "undertaking" ["purposes of their undertaking"], to insert the words "or by a Government Department or local authority."
When we were dealing with this question in Committee, I indicated that some further exceptions would be necessary beyond those already stated in the Clause, and the present Amendment, with the next two on the Paper, deal with those further exceptions. I have tried to follow the lines laid down in Clause 7, and have included, with public companies statutory bodies, and so on, local authorities and Government Departments who have acquired land for a specific purpose, and who, having temporarily let the land, when they require it for the purpose in question, must have it without having to give twelve months' notice.

Mr. PRETYMAN: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I take it that it will be more convenient that we should discuss these three Amendments together. On the whole I raise no objection to them, but I do not follow the last words of the third Amendment. That Amendment proposes to insert the words
authorising the resumption of possession of the holding or some part thereof for some specified purpose, unless that purpose is the use of the land for agriculture or the sale of the land.
Where land is resumed for building, or for the use of a local authority, or for any development purpose, it is usually sold, and the land will be resumed for sale, for which purpose it will have been reserved. That is quite a common and ordinary thing, and, in fact, it will be so in most cases; and if 12 months' notice is required because the land is sold, the whole purpose of the proviso will be vitiated. The Clause very properly says that all notices for the quitting of agricultural land in the ordinary sense shall be for 12 months, but after that a proviso is inserted which is absolutely necessary in order to prevent the use of land for purposes of development being held up by the requirement of 12 months' notice, when the case is already covered by the contract of tenancy. In nine cases out of 10, when land is taken for purposes of development, it is sold, and it is obviously impossible that you should have to give 12 months' notice in that case, while, if
you were building the house or making the railway, or whatever it is, yourself, you would only have to give the notice for resumption provided in the contract of tenancy.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Unless you put in the words "or for sale," I think you are opening the door very wide. The principal cause of the insecurity which has been felt in recent years by tenant farmers has been traceable to the innumerable sales that have taken place. In many cases a great grievance has been felt, and disturbances have even occurred in the saleroom, because the notice has been so short. My right hon. Friend and I both know cases in which that has happened. If you are going to say that, in the case of a sale, the notice shall be less than 12 months, you really strike at the principal object of the Clause. I remember a case in which a landowner had the right under his agreement to give only one month's notice to all his tenants if he wished to sell the land or any part of it, and that might be possible here if the exception which my right hon. Friend desires is made. Surely that would be most undesired able. As a matter of fact, in that case there was so much trouble in the neigh hour hood that the notices were with drawn. If we are going to allow 12 months' notice to be unnecessary if there is a sale—

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not suggest that at all. If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I said that I entirely agreed with the Clause itself, which covers the point which he is now making. What I wish to point out is that it is for the Government to reconcile these two evils, which have to be met. Where the notice is given for the purpose of sale, it should certainly be twelve months, and, as a matter of fact, it must be more because of the Cautley Act. There is the case, however, in which there is a special provision in the contract of tenancy where the land is required to be resumed for development purposes; and in that case, when the land is resumed, it is usually sold. Although I understand, and fully sympathise with, the excellent object of these words, I think it is for the Government, who have introduced this Bill, not to obstruct or hamper development by enabling a tenant, who has agreed to vacate the land at one week's notice where it is urgently required for develop-
ment purposes, to say that, simply because it happens to be sold, he is therefore entitled to twelve months' notice. My right hon. Friend must meet that point. It is impossible to make the words apply to all cases in which a sale takes place; what he wants to prevent is the giving of notice where the object is merely to sell.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I agree with my right hon. Friend that what we do want is to obviate the giving of a very short notice simply for the purpose of a sale. It may be that these words go too far, and I shall be quite willing to leave out the last words of the Amendment, on the understanding that we shall consider the the insertion of some words to meet the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3, b), leave out the words "for those purposes" and insert instead thereof the words "Government Department or authority for the purpose (not being the use of the land for agriculture) for which it was acquired by the corporation, department or authority."

In Sub-section (3, c), leave out the words "where such resumption of the holding or any part thereof is for the purposes defined in the said contract in respect of which resumption of any part of the holding may be obtained," and insert instead thereof the words "authorising the resumption of the possession of the holding or some part thereof for some specified purpose, unless that purpose is the use of the land for agriculture."

At the end of Sub-section (3, c) insert a new paragraph, "(d) any notice given by a tenant to a sub-tenant; or."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Minor Amendments of 8 Edw. 7, c. 28.)

The Ampendments in the second column of the First Schedule to this Act (which relate to minor details) shall be made in the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, specified in the first column of that Schedule.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Sub-section (a).—(2) Compensation shall be payable in respect of any of the improvements specified in the Amendments referred
to in the preceding Sub-section, whether these improvements have been executed before or after the commencement of this Act.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that this makes the Act retrospective, but if it is right that compensation should be paid in respect of the items which it is now proposed to add to the Schedule of the Act of 1908, surely it is also right that such compensation should be paid whether those improvements were executed before or after the passing of this Act.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am afraid that I must give the answer which the hon. and gallant Member expected. It does make the Act retrospective. It may be that in the past we have left undone things which we ought to have done, but now we are endeavouring to do the things which we ought to have done. It is, however, quite impossible to go back and say that all these things are to be brought forward. I am afraid that the answer which my hon. and gallant Friend has already given is the answer on which I shall have to rely.

Mr. J. GARDINER: I think that we ought to give the Solicitor-General the opportunity to make atonement for the past, and to do what we consider would be fair justice to the tenants in these cases. I hope that the word "atonement" will appeal to him, and that he will do something for us.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 25.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
(3) The expression "agricultural committee" means the agricultural committee established for a county or borough under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919.

Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words "The expression 'rules of good husbandry' means the rules of good husbandry generally recognised as applying to holdings of the same character and in the same neighbourhood as the holding
in respect of which the expression is to be applied."
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The forms of husbandry might be worse in one district than in another, and I think this is a very dangerous Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think so. I think that it makes the Bill a little more precise. There are certain established rules, varying in different districts—largely because the character of the farming is different—which are generally recognised as carrying out what are known as the rules of good husbandry, and I think that what is applicable to one district should be made the standard for that district.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
(6) References to the terms, conditions, or requirements of a contract of tenancy of a holding shall be construed as including references to any obligations, conditions, or liabilities implied by the custom of the country in respect of the holding.
This is the Amendment to which I made frequent references during the course of a Debate, and which makes it necessary to bring in the words "custom of the country." Custom of the country is understood to apply in all cases where reference has been made to the terms of a contract.

Mr. TOWNLEY: Has it been made quite clear that "custom of the country" will be meant in all cases where there are no agreements and no contracts?

Sir E. POLLOCK: signified assent.

Mr. TOWNLEY: It appears to me that the Clause requires at the end, "implied by custom of the country in the absence of an agreement," or words to that effect. The point is, if there is no contract of tenancy existing, as there is not in many cases, that custom of the country should apply in the future as heretofore. I am sure that is the intention, but I want to make it quite clear that that is the case.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment,
after the word "of" ["contract of tenancy of"], to insert the words "or of an agreement relating to."
The hon. Member has drawn attention to a point which ought to be met under this Clause. I think it quite necessary to put in a word or two to deal with the point. It might be met if I might move to put in, as an Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Amendment, after the words "contract of tenancy of," to add the words "or of an agreement relating to."
The Clause would then read:
References to the terms, conditions or requirements of a contract of tenancy of or of an agreement relating to a holding shall be construed.
When a tenant is holding a farm, although he may not have got a form of contract he is holding under some form of agreement. If you bring in some wording to show that the custom of the country applies to the agreement my hon. Friend's point would be met.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is some little misunderstanding. A contract of tenancy does not mean a written contract. Every tenant of a farm who is tenant of a farm or of a house is under a contract. It does not matter whether it is written or not, the rent is fixed, the terms are fixed. It does not matter whether they are governed by the custom of the country. I think this term "contract of tenancy" is quite clear. Many farms have no contract at all.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am ready to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I hope hon. Members will make up their minds. When we refer to an agreement, as we do in another Clause, I think it better to put it in, so that we should have no doubt at all about it. If the hon. Member for Grantham (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) objects to my Amendment, I am willing to withdraw it. I carefully considered the matter this morning, and it occurred to me that it would be necessary to move those words. If it in any way disconcerts any of my hon. Friends, I am willing to withdraw it.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not understand why this Clause is necessary at all, and I should be glad if the Solicitor-General would tell me. Wherever you have a contract of tenancy the custom of the country is imported except where the terms of the written document exclude it. I should
also like to ask the Solicitor-General what is the difference between the "custom of the country" and the "rules of good husbandry." In my view of the law there is imported to every contract to farm according to the custom of the country which is according to the rules of good husbandry appertaining to that particular locality, and I have not the slightest doubt that that is the law on both these points.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have no doubt my hon and learned Friend is quite right that the custom applies in all the cases he suggests, and there is no difference between us on a point of law. The reason why this Clause has been moved is that from time to time during the course of the Bill the suggestion has been made that where we have used the word agreement or contract, or so on, in order to safeguard any doubt we should have put in the word "custom"; and we were asked to by a great number of Members to put it in. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) was very insistent the other day that we should put it in. In my opinion and the opinion of the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) is that it was quite unnecessary. The Member for East Grinstead is making a point that it is quite superfluous; but at the same time in order to avoid doubt we are putting in this Clause because we wanted, if possible, to make the Bill such that those who are not experienced in the law, as the hon. Member is, might have no doubt on the point. Therefore my right hon. Friend moved this Clause. It is really moved in pursuance of an undertaking already given to this House.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to know whether, if under the peculiar conditions of some particular farm, there was a contract of tenancy which was outside the custom of the country for some particular reason, and both parties agreed to it, in the event of an arbitration there would not be a conflict on this point?

Sir E. POLLOCK: No, because the agreement would exclude the custom of the country.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I hope the Solicitor-General will stick to what he has said, and put in some form of words to safeguard these tenancies which have neither contract nor agreement We have tenancies in the country which go on from
generation to generation which have absolutely no written contract of any sort. The legal mind is much more subtle than mine, but I hope it will be clearly shown by the Solicitor-General, because this will be discussed by the farmers without legal assistance, and I hope he will insert those words.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg then to adhere to the proposal which I have made.

Major M. WOOD: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the word "country" should be replaced by the word "district"? In many cases you may have a custom recognised all over the country but not—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is really quite unnecessary. Custom of the country is a well known expression. It always refers to the custom of a locality.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 26.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act shall apply to Scotland, with the following modifications:

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires—
(c) The expressions "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," and "the Act of 1908," mean the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, and references to Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section twenty-nine respectively of the said Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act:

(3) In the application of Sub-section (3) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance "five years" shall be substituted for "two years."

(4) For references to becoming bankrupt or compounding with creditors there shall be substituted references to becoming not our bankrupt or executing a trust deed for be hoof of creditors; and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration:

(5) The Sections of this Act relating to extension of tenancies under leases for a term of years and to notices to quit shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

(a) Sub-section (1) of Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 shall, in the case of a lease granted for a term expiring after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, have
288
effect as though for the words "three years" and the words "six months" there were substituted the words "two years" and the words "one year" respectively;
(b) The provisions of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, relating to removings shall, in the case of any holding to which Section eighteen of the Act of 1908 applies, have effect subject to the provisions of that Section as modified by paragraph (a) of this Sub-section:

(9) For Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Act of 1908, there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:—
(1) All questions which under this Act or under the lease are referred to arbitration shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding any agreement under the lease or otherwise providing for a different method of arbitration, be determined, if the parties so agree, by a single arbiter agreed to by them in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, and, failing such agreement, shall, upon the application of either party, be determined by the Scottish Land Court, which, for this purpose, shall have the like powers and jurisdiction as they have for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919. References in this Act or in the lease to arbitration or to arbiters shall be construed accordingly:

(10) The Section of this Act relating to the constitution of a panel of arbitrators shall not apply, and references in this Act and in the Act of 1917 to arbitration or arbitrators shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the immediately pre ceding paragraph of this Section.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The first Amendment standing on the Order Paper is out of order, because it may involve a charge.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I very respectfully suggest that this need not necessarily involve a charge, and, if that be so, it is in order to insert it in the Bill?

Sir D. MACLEAN: On that point of Order. I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that although the proposal of the Amendment may lead to an increase of expenditure, it does not lead to a new charge. If I might respectfully refer you to a ruling of the Speaker on the Agriculture Bill on the 2nd of November when the question of the Welsh Wages Board was introduced. It is quite
obvious that to introduce any fresh machinery of that kind would inevitably increase the expenditure, but my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill said this to Mr. Speaker: "May I say that there is a charge already for the payment of the expenses of the Agricultural Wages Board? I anticipate that the charge may be increased, but there will be no fresh charge." Then Mr. Speaker said, after hearing what had been put to him by my right hon. Friend on these grounds: "I think that disposes of the difficulty of a fresh charge." On this particular Amendment there is such a differentiation between a cost that may fall upon the Exchequer in giving a subsidy to the Scottish farmer in dealing with wheat and oats other than might fall upon the Exchequer in dealing with the farmer farther south of the Tweed. I quite agree that there may be some fresh machinery invoked in ascertaining what this difference was. As far as that is concerned, whatever it might be, it would not be a fresh charge, and such an increase as there might be would be a very small one, because such statistics as they want can be got from the "Return of Market Prices," issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which gives, on page 5, the whole of the necessary details. Having stated that, may I emphasise the distinction which I respectfully suggest to you you might take on this occasion, in accordance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that, although if as the result of the operation of this proposal there would be some added expenditure there will be no fresh charge within the meaning of the Standing Orders of the House which you have' to administer?

Sir F. BANBURY: As I raised the question which my right hon. Friend has alluded to, when I pointed out to Mr. Speaker that the Amendment would involve increased expenditure not only my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) admitted that there would be increased expenditure, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that though there would be an increased expenditure, which even might run up to some considerable amount, that would not involve a fresh charge, and on that Mr. Speaker ruled that the Amendment was in order. It does not seem to me that that differed in any kind of way from the point of Order which is now before you. I sup-
pose it would not be in order to say I was rather surprised at the ruling, but it is a ruling which was given, and it seems to me it bears upon the present question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not base myself in any way on the case to which the right hon. Baronet has referred of any increased cost of administrative expenses. I talked the matter over a short time ago with Mr. Speaker, and I have his notes in front of me. It is solely on the ground that it might, and probably would, increase the charge on the guarantee, because the purpose of the Amendment clearly is that if you fix the price of wheat in Scotland below the price in England a special arrangement should take place which would involve an increase on the guarantee. On that ground Mr. Speaker ruled out an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Antrim when he wished to propose a precisely similar differentiation in the case of Ireland.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in paragraph (1, c), to leave out the words "Section forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Section" and to insert instead thereof the words "Sections twenty-one and forty-two of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as references to Sections twenty and".
This is a purely drafting Amendment, consequential upon an Amendment made to Clause 20, which has reference to Section 21 of the English Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908. This Amendment substitutes for Scotland a reference to the corresponding Section of the Scottish Act of 1908.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. GARDINER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (3), to insert the words "and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) of that Section shall apply to yearly tenancies only."
The reason for this suggestion is to make sure that the custom and law of Scotland shall continue in the future as in the past, and that yearly tenancies only shall be affected by the Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The paragraph to which it relates is that which provides that compensation for disturbance, shall not be payable where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit. This matter was very fully discussed both in its English and Scottish aspects, not only in Committee upstairs but on the Report stage of the Bill. A division was taken on each of those occasions and the principle of the matter was then definitely settled. It is now proposed, for a reason which I do not fully understand, to restrict its application, as regards Scotland, only to the case of yearly tenancies. It is in such cases no doubt that the provision is most likely to operate, but I do not see why the Clause should not apply in England and in Scotland both, or should be excluded from operation in England and in Scotland both. I do not see any reason for applying this provision to Scotland, and not applying it to England, where yearly tenancies are much more numerous than they are in Scotland. The provision as it stands exactly echoes the provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, which deals with compensation for disturbance in the very same manner as this Section deals with it.

Major M. WOOD: Capricious disturbance.

Mr. MUNRO: I said disturbance. The principle is really the same, and I am not aware that there has been any difficulty whatever found in the operation of the Act of 1908. I should be sorry to disturb the principle which was then established, particularly having regard to the solemn decision to which the House and the Committee came after full debate, in the course of which both the English and the Scottish case were thoroughly debated. I hope the House will adhere to the decision already come to if my hon. Friend does not withdraw his Amendment.

Major W. MURRAY: I am in agreement upon this Amendment, for practical reasons, with the hon. Member (Mr. Gardiner). When a lease in Scotland comes to an end after the death of the tenant, there are very sound reasons for allowing that lease to go on. At the close of the lease the landlord has two important questions to consider. He has to consider whether the dispersal of
the tenant's property is such that he cannot continue the tenancy to the widow, because it would be against reasons of good estate management, and he has to consider likewise whether he can put in the son. These questions sometimes take some time to decide. They are very often rather better if not decided in a hurry. It is the custom of the country in Scotland at present to decide them at the close of the lease, and for that reason, the reason really of good estate management, it would be very much better that the decision in these matters should be allowed to rest until the lease comes to an end, and the present custom be adhered to, and paragraph (c) of Sub-section (5) only applied in the case of yearly leases.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, after paragraph (3), to insert a new paragraph—
(4) In the application of Sub-section (4) of the Section of this Act relating to compensation for disturbance, 'rent' means rent after deduction of the county and parish and other local rates payable by the owner.
It has been decided that it is the gross rent which is to be taken as the standard in computing whether one year's rent is to be paid for disturbance in accordance with good estate management, or two to four years' gross rent in the case of capricious disturbance. There is a slight difference between gross rent in Scotland and gross rent in England. In England the landlord does not pay the rates. The tenant pays the whole of them. In Scotland, on the other hand, the landlord and the tenant each pay half. The consequence is that though nominal rents are higher in Scotland than they are in England, the actual rent for similar land is practically the same. A farm which would, perhaps, be let in England for £100, is charged £120 in Scotland, but in England the farmer pays all the rates. The landowner in Scotland would get £120, but he would have to pay away £20 in rates, and the tenant would have to pay £20 less in Scotland than he did in England. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the compensation for disturbance will be considerably greater in Scotland than in England. It will be greater by the extent of half the local rates. The object of the Bill is to put Scotland
and England in precisely the same position, as far as possible, with regard to the provisions under this Bill.

Sir A. SPROT: I beg to second the Amendment.
The subject may be described as one of international importance, and if this be not adopted, it may be said to be another injustice to Scotland, because the Scottish landowner will be mulcted in a greater sum than his English confrère, whose circumstances are similar. If a landowner lets his farm in England at £100 a year, and gives notice to quit under these circumstances, he will be called upon to pay £100 compensation, amongst other things, to his tenant, but in Scotland, supposing the rates amount to £20 on a farm which is rented at £120, and if the Scottish landowner was called upon to pay £120 to his tenant, he would really be paying more than in a similar case in England, because £20 of it is represented by the rates which he has to pay. There is a precedent for this. Under the Budget of 1909 the Mineral Rights Duty was imposed, and when it was first passed it was charged upon the gross, both in England and in Scotland, notwithstanding the fact that in Scotland mineral rents are assessed to local rates. About two years afterwards, when the subject had been ventilated a little, an Amendment was introduced into the Budget of that day, and from that time the Scottish mineral rent owners have only paid on the net and not upon the gross. I trust the Minister in charge will adopt the same proceeding in this case.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY.: I am not sure whether the Amendment as drafted will carry out what the mover and seconder of it have in view, but I certainly think there should be no differentiation between English and Scottish landlords, and that a Scottish landlord should not pay more compensation than the English landlord is called upon to do, though under the Bill as it at present stands the Scottish landlord has to pay more. I certainly think some such Amendment as this should be introduced to make it fair as between the two countries.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say as an Englishman, I should be very loath to see another injustice to Scotland, but I do not know of any injustice on Scotland at pre-
sent. It does seem to me that the Amendment is most reasonable. I rather object to the allusion by the seconder to what took place in the 1919 Budget. There is very little left of that and whatever was in it was wrong. I hope the Scottish landlord will be put in the same position as the English landlord. My general experience is that he is in a better position

Mr. MUNRO: Like the right hon. Baronet, or perhaps even more so, I should be sorry to be a party to doing any injustice to my native country. The Mover of the Amendment raised this point on Clause 7. While I quite appreciate there is a Scottish aspect of this matter, yet there are one or two considerations which I think the House should bear in mind before coming to a decision. The present Amendment is based on this, that in Scottish counties owners pay, broadly speaking, one half of the local assessments, including rates, which in England are payable by the occupier. That is no doubt true. That feature is also reflected in the Scottish farm rents, because in order to obtain the same return as English landlords the Scottish owner must charge a higher rent, and accordingly the Scottish tenant pays through the landlord in the form of rent a certain sum which in England he would pay direct to the rate-collector. The Seconder of the Amendment has suggested a precedent which after the remarks of the right hon. Baronet I hesitate to refer to. He mentioned the Mineral Rights Duty. I do not think that is as appropriate a precedent as that which is to be found in Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, where rent is taken as the measure of a farmer's profits and the farmer is allowed no such deduction as this. That case is really more analogous to the present case. Payment under this Bill is made by way of compensation not of fine. There are obvious advantages in taking the gross rent as the measure in this case. The amount is well known and definite. Local variations which would require special investigation in every case would be extremely difficult in administration. Therefore I suggest these two considerations should be borne in mind, but if there be a general wish that the matter should be again reconsidered, I shall be happy to look into it again before the Bill goes to another place.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not at all convinced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a very good Amendment, nor do I think the Income Tax analogy is at all applicable. Everybody knows that under the Income Tax there are all sorts of charges made which are neither fair nor just, but which are supposed to be allowed under the existing law. We have often been told we shall never have a fair system of Income Tax until there has been a reconsideration of the whole situation and a special measure passed. Surely it seems perfectly fair where the landlord pays a sum in rates that that ought to be allowed in paying compensation. I cannot really see any argument against this Amendment. I do not think the reason he has given is at all apposite, and I hope some further consideration will be given to the matter.

Sir J. HOPE: I am not at all satisfied, with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. This Bill was in Committee last July, and the point was brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he has had plenty of time to consider it. With regard to the difficulties of deduction, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Income Tax, but he knows that in assessment for Income Tax there is a deduction allowed for local rates. As to the objection that under the Amendment there will not be a precise sum, I would point out that the compensation can never be precise, because it must vary according to the decisions of the arbitrator or the Land Court in Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: What I said was definite gross valuation, not compensation.

Sir J. HOPE: I think the right hon. Gentleman objected to accepting the Amendment, because it would put on an indeterminate sum, instead of a definite sum. My reply to that is that the sum for compensation is always dependent on the arbitrator's decision in England, as I hope it will be in Scotland, or on the Land Court in Scotland. Therefore, the fact that there is not any absolute fixed amount is not of any great weight. There is approval on both sides of the House for this proposal, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give me some guarantee that he will consider sympathetically before it goes to another place, I shall have to press the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: May I say that I have really given the undertaking that the hon. and gallant Member asks for. The hesitation I feel in accepting the Amendment here and now is because of administrative difficulties which I fear will attend its acceptance, and the further difficulty that I am very doubtful whether this particular Amendment would achieve the object aimed at. On those grounds I hope the hon. and gallant Member will rest satisfied with the assurance I have given.

Sir J. HOPE: On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (4), leave out the words "and for references to a receiving order in bankruptcy there shall be substituted references to an award of sequestration."—[Mr. Munro.]

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in paragraph (5, a), to leave out the words "and the words 'six months' there were substituted the words 'two years' and 'one year' respectively," and to insert instead thereof the words "there were substituted the words 'two years'."
Paragraph (5) of this Clause consists of two parts. The first requires notice of not less than one year and not more than two years before the determination of a lease of two years and upwards, instead of three years, as the law stands to-day. The second part of paragraph (5) increases the notice which is required in leases from year to year or for any other period less than two years from six months to one year. My Amendment proposes to eliminate the second part and leave the first part standing. One of the chief objections to the second part is that it would or might require in the lease for a year that notice should be given on the day of entry, in order to avoid possible expense. That seems rather an absurd condition, and the Amendment proposes to alter it. So far as I know, there is no demand for the extension to which I have referred. An Amendment was moved on this subject in Committee, and I said that the matter might be reconsidered if there was any general feeling in the agricultural community that the period of notice should be enlarged. From that day until now I have not received any representation of the
kind suggested, and accordingly I proposed this Amendment.

Major M. WOOD: I also in the Recess made it my business to get the opinion of farmers or anyone likely to be interested in this question, and I found that there was no demand for the change proposed. Therefore, I think that it is right that we should leave the law as it stands to-day.

Amendment agreed to.

6.0 p.m.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (9) and (10) and to insert instead thereof a new paragraph—
(9) In Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of this Act for the words 'the Lord Chief Justice of England' there shall be substituted the words 'the Lord President of the Court of Session,' and in Sub-section (2) of the same Section the words 'Auditor of the Sheriff Court' for the words 'Registrar of the County Court.'
May I say that, in moving this Amendment, I do not do so because of any particular feeling I may have expressed in the past in connection with some decisions of the Scottish Land Court. I have nothing of that kind in my mind. I say quite frankly that I think it is an excellent Court as part of the machinery for dealing with small holdings and rent and matters of that kind. I hope it will be particularly noted that any objections I have to the proposal of the Clause have got nothing to do with any feeling as to the Land Court, which is presided over by a very able and impartial judge. I object to the proposal for two different reasons. I object mainly, because I do not think it is possible for the Land Court, as constituted in its present size, to discharge the duties proposed to be imposed upon it by this Bill. We recently placed some new duties on their shoulders in connection with the Amendment of the Scottish Landholders Act. Everybody knows that there is very considerable congestion of cases before the Land Courts. I am told that they are gradually getting through the arrears, but many have been standing over for an unconscionable time. It is the essence of these questions that they should be decided promptly. The whole of those cases will arise either at Martinmas or Whitsuntide, and there would be considerable congestion in con-
sequence of the periodic times at which these changes take place, and there might be considerable delay on the part of the Land Court in settling the very difficult questions that arise.
These questions can only be settled with reasonable fairness by arbiters who understand the local conditions, who are conversant with climatic conditions and general farming arrangements practised in the district and know exactly the circumstances with which they are dealing. Members of the Land Court do not know anything about that. They have no experience and they would be taken away from what they are dealing with to a much wider and more difficult class of question. It would be impossible to discharge these duties in their own person. They could not break themselves up in sufficient numbers to go about the country and inquire on the spot. Whoever settles these questions can only do it by inspecting the farm and understanding the question. The cost appears to me to be very considerable. I understand that it will be a charge on the taxpayer. I understand that the Secretary for Scotland when he asked the farmers, I think in the Chamber of Agriculture, whether they preferred to pay for arbitration of this kind or leave it on the taxpayers, they said that they would much prefer to pay for it because they thought that it would be worth the money, and I am informed that the farmers in Scotland are against this proposal and desire the existing system of arbitration to continue. No doubt under this Clause if there is agreement they can have arbitration. If not they must go to the Land Court.
The Clause for England provides a wholly different system, a panel of arbiters, men of experience and knowledge, in various districts who will deal with those questions and can be relied on to give a fair and impartial decision. I cannot see what difference there should be between a Northumbrian farmer and a farmer in Dumfriesshire or Berwickshire. We do not want the crofter principle applied all over Scotland. It is very suitable for the Highlands. Although the old Liberal Government passed the Crofters Act it was a Tory Government that provided all the money to carry it out. So both parties have an interest in it, and deserve some credit for it though my party never receive any credit, although
they are the people who made the Act effective. We do not want to see that all over Scotland. Farmers much prefer arbitration. My right hon. Friend is very fond of the Land Court because it is an easy way out. Governments and hon. Members who draft Bills always take the easiest possible way out, and they say, "As there is a Land Court why not use it?" I have given reasons why I think they should not, and, therefore, with some confidence, I submitted this Amendment to the House.

Mr. MUNRO: I desire, at the outset, to acknowledge the moderation of the speech of my hon. Friend and the handsome tribute which he has paid to the existing Land Court. The subject was discussed in other days in a very different manner. I hope that I may be trusted not to import the smallest heat into the Debate to-day. There are two preliminary observations which I wish to make. One must bear in mind that the Bill, according to its present structure, provides for arbitration if the parties are agreeable that that course should be adopted, and it is only in the event of their differing as regards going to arbitration that the good offices of the Land Court are to be railed in. In the second place, you are dealing with a very different situation in Scotland from that in England. Here there is no Land Court and the phrase, I understand, is not by any means a popular one on this side of the Border. In Scotland, on the other hand, you have a Land Court which has been in existence since 1911. In England, in the absence of a Land Court, it was thought proper to select a small panel of arbiters. In Scotland you have ready to hand a panel of arbiters ready to enter upon the duties and fit to perform them. This course will make for economy, which is an important consideration. Arbiters have to be paid by the parties. I do not remember the interview to which my hon. Friend referred, in which I met the farmers, who said that they preferred to pay for arbitration rather than go to the Land Court. One gets information in different ways, but my information, as against that of my hon. Friend, is that the farming community as a whole in Scotland desire that the Land Court shall adjudicate in this matter.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I have a letter in my hand from Sir Isaac Connell, Secretary to the Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland. That is my authority.

Mr. MUNRO: I have the greatest respect for Sir Isaac Connell and the Chamber of which he is Secretary, but there are other agricultural societies in Scotland as well and their opinions must be considered. So far as the agricultural community is concerned, opinion may be divided. I do not represent it as entirely unanimous. On the question of economy, arbiters have to be paid by the parties and the Land Court is paid by the State. The course which is suggested in the Bill, which was not chosen as an easy way out, will cost the State no more, for you will have a Land Court in any case, and it will cost the farmers less. The machinery and officers are all there and can be utilised without any additional cost so far as my information goes. Therefore this course would make for economy. It will also make for uniformity. If you have arbitrators deciding cases up and down the country you will have irreconcilable and conflicting decisions which would be very undesirable. Take our experience under the 1911 Act. We had arbiters who thought that depreciation in selling value which resulted from the constitution of small holdings was a fair claim which ought to have some value put upon it and they did so, while other arbiters thought that the claim was wholly inadmissible and refused it every time. The result was confusion. There would be precisely the same thing if you are going to have arbiters in every county in Scotland without any consultation with one another pronouncing judgments which are wholly irreconcilable. Uniformity will disappear and one of the chief desiderata in connection with a matter of this kind will be lost. That is recognised in England under this Bill, and the panel is to be a small one. You are not dealing with a proposal that should have arbiters up and down the country. The proposal is that there should be a panel.

Sir J. HOPE: Our proposal is to put Scotland in exactly the same position as England under this Bill.

Mr. MUNRO: A small panel is suggested in order to secure uniformity of decision. You can obtain it to a certain
extent perhaps by a small panel, but not so well as by one court which is to deal with every case and will give uniform decisions. I go further and say that the proposal which has been adopted not only makes for economy and uniformity but it makes also for efficiency. I would remind the House of the constitution of the Scottish Land Court. It differs in many respects from any other Land Court which I have known. The Chairman to whom a handsome tribute has been paid by my hon. Friend has the status of a judge of the Court of Session, which corresponds to the status of a judge of the High Court in England. That is a very good start. When you talk about local knowledge being required for agricultural matters it is necessary to remember that agricultural matters are decided every day in the High Courts in Scotland and in England and in the House of Lords by gentlemen who have no special agricultural knowledge, but who decide the matter in virtue of their experience upon the evidence submitted to them. Therefore, I think that the argument based upon expert knowledge or local knowledge may be pressed too far.

Sir G. YOUNGER: What about the cost of it and of all the evidence? We propose to avoid that.

Mr. MUNRO: I have some experience of the Land Court and of arbitration. I have been an arbitrator and have appeared before arbitrators. I know something of the cost of arbitration, and as a rule before you are out of an arbitration, even of a small character, you put your hands very deep into your pockets. I have referred to the Chairman of the Court. What about the other members? Three members, I think, are farmers. One of them is an ex-chairman of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, to whom fitting reference has been made. I should have thought that some confidence might have been placed in his judgment. The next member, as a Chairman of a county council and convener of the county, has had administrative experience as a publicist and a man of the world. The third has special experience of the north and west of Scotland and possesses a knowledge of Gaelic, which is a very important matter in dealing with questions arising in many parts of Scotland.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: Who represents the proprietors?

Mr. MUNRO: There is a vacancy in the Land Court. I am not sufficiently acquainted with my hon. and gallant Friend's aspirations to know whether he desires to fill it or not.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I made no attack on the Court. I tried only to show what is the method of procedure.

Mr. MUNRO: I have not forgotten my hon. Friend's speech, and I am proposing to deal with it. We are dealing with the kind of tribunal to which the Government propose to submit this matter, and I am entitled to describe to the House the standing and the qualifications of that tribunal. Such is the Land Court to which we propose to submit questions which arise under this Bill. There is a vacancy which I propose to fill at an early date, and I shall bear in mind all relevant considerations in making the appointment. What are the objections to this Court discharging these duties? I understand three objections were taken. It was said, first of all, that they have no time for the work. I must ask hon. Members to remember that under the Land Settlement Act the Land Court was relieved of many duties which formerly it had had to perform, and those duties were placed upon the Board of Agriculture. Prima facie, I think that the Land Court would be well able to cope with this work under this Bill. The Chairman of the Land Court assures me that the Court is well able to do the duty, and he ought to know. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) spoke about local knowledge. What has the Land Court been doing for ten years? It has travelled from end to end of Scotland times without number, and it is better acquainted with local conditions in every part of Scotland than any arbitrator of whom one could think. There is nothing about the land which the members do not know. It is suggested that the Land Court is more fitted to perform the duties laid upon it by the 1911 Act than those imposed by the Bill now before the House. I differ from that view. It is relevant to remember who the Chairman is. Surely a gentleman with the status of a judge of the Court of Sessions, accustomed to hearing evidence and to giving decisions upon it, may be trusted to tackle a Statute like this with some hope of success. Then, are not farmers
just as well adapted to deal with land taken from farms as any other class of the community? It has been said that they deal only with small matters, crofts and the like. That is true, but the principles are identical, whether you are dealing with a small holding or with an estate. Let me give an example. They have to deal with rents under this Bill. They have to deal now with rents and also with valuations in the case of resumption. Compensation is another matter with which they have to deal. Such questions arise again and again. Compensation and rent are two of the matters to which they are applying their minds every day of the week and every week of the year. I submit, therefore, that the proposal which the Bill makes is a reasonable proposal, and inasmuch as my hon. Friend has fairly stated that he has confidence in the Chairman of the Land Court and that he approves of the Land Court, I submit that he has not succeeded in establishing that there is such a wide divergence of the duty imposed upon that Court by this Bill from that imposed by the Act of 1911 as to disable the Court from performing their hard duties properly.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain that Members sitting immediately behind me are in entire accord with the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, for he speaks on this question not only with the experience of his own particular year of office, but also with knowledge of the controversy which preceded the Act now on the Statute Book. The speech as it stands, to my mind, is a complete and final answer to the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) uses his wholly exceptional gifts of geniality, not as a cloak for any insidious attack, for his geniality is a part of himself, but he has all through these long years been a determined opponent of the Land Court. With his usual frankness to-day he has declared that there is a good deal to be said for it.

Sir G. YOUNGER: As at present constituted.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We are dealing only with things as they are, and I am giving the go-by to the past. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir J. Hope) let the cat
out of the bag as to what he thinks about it. He says it is a superfluous Land Court. Let me remind him and others who agree with him that, whether he likes it or not, these Land Courts have come to stay, and are an integral part of the development of Scottish agriculture, whereby smallholders can get on the land and the land will have a chance at last of development.

Sir J. HOPE: I said it was superfluous only with regard to large farms and not with regard to small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to twist my words.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I must be more careful, then. One of the strongest arguments which can be adduced in favour of the proposal of the Government is that this Court has an amount of accumulated experience which is at its disposal to-day, and that it is administered by men in whom the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has a degree of confidence which he could not accord to the Land Court as previously constituted. Anybody who has had anything to do with disputed questions in agriculture knows what an immense advantage that accumulated experience is. It has been suggested that the best way to deal with these matters is by arbiter. Are you going to give the go-by to the whole of that accumulated experience possessed by men who are now trusted by their former critics? Into what hands will you place their duties? The arbiters would be selected from a panel. There could not be a greater waste of public money and of experience. You would lose uniformity, and uniformity is an immense advantage. You would undoubtedly add to the expense. There is no lawyer here who will not confirm me in that statement that if you get a regular Court, dealing with this work with efficiency and speed, that is in the vast majority of cases infinitely preferable to private arbitration. Then there is the question of delay. It is no unusual thing, in going to arbitration, to have a case postponed for days and even for weeks at a time, whereas if that case came before the Court the Court would get on with it and settle it. Once the Court gets hold of a case it finishes it. Arbiters have so many adjournments, and there is such dilatoriness that there is an immense amount of personal inconvenience added to the greater expense. I think that those
points alone should dispose of the Amendment.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will cause grievous disappointment in that country when the people read it. My right hon. Friend made absolutely no attack on the personnel of the Land Court. We all quite recognise that that Court is doing quite good work in carrying on its duties, but we have to devise means now for providing machinery whereby this Bill, if it become an Act, will work in the smoothest manner, and command the greatest confidence of everybody concerned. Let us see what the position is. It will be open for the parties to come to an agreement. If they do not the question at issue will be referred to arbitration. We see what the machinery is in England for similar cases. We recognise that in Scotland pretty well the same conditions prevail and we are therefore bound to ask ourselves why not carry out the English method. We recognise that local knowledge is of primary importance. The right hon. Gentleman held up the Land Court as an excellent means for carrying on this Bill. If the Land Court is indispensable in Scotland why not have a Land Court for England? If the Land Court is so absolutely indispensable that the Bill will not work without it in Scotland is it not equally necessary to have it for England? Conditions in Scotland are pretty much the same as those in the South, and when we have local bodies appealing to us to get the Government to appoint a panel of arbitrators to carry on this work I think we should hesitate before taking any other course. Custom goes a long way when once set to work, and the farmers in Scotland have always been accustomed to arbitration. Every extension of the 1908 Act has been a success because the arbitration system has been adopted. And if that is the case I think we are entitled to press the Government to adhere to the old method. The Secretary for Scotland told us that the great advantage in having a Land Court would be that there would be uniformity of procedure. The Land Court is a body composed of farmers. How can such a body go into all parts of Scotland and do its work when it has absolutely no local knowledge of the value of land in the, different districts? I think on the whole the Government would be doing
an unwise thing at the present time in refusing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, if the Bill is to be a success, it must carry agricultural opinion with it in Scotland. It may only be prejudiced, but prejudice goes a long way in this world. There is prejudice against the Land Court at the present time, and when it is without local experience and without local knowledge we may be sure its decisions will not be trusted. Under the circumstances I have the utmost confidence in supporting my right hon. Friend.

Colonel GREIG: We have been told that this Amendment would commend itself to opinion in Scotland. Representing as I do a good many farmers, I take leave to say that it does not represent Scottish opinion as a whole in that respect. I have had no representations which show that agricultural opinion in the part of the country I represent is opposed to the Land Court. What is the fact about the Land Court? Would it be necessary for it to travel into different agricultural districts? Of course not. The arbitration can be held in Edinburgh if it is of sufficient importance. If people want arbitration they can get it under the Bill as it stands, providing they can agree between themselves. But they know, and this should be an additional incentive to them to agree, that if they do not agree to arbitration they will go to the Land Court. We have had decisions of this Court for four or five years recorded in a series of very able reports from the different judges, and anyone who has taken the trouble to read those reports must have come to the conclusion that there has never been a body of decisions which show more precision and a more active grasp of the principles of law they have to administer. The same characteristics will surely distinguish their decisions when they come to deal with questions of valuation and so on, which will arise under this Bill, and which are in every respect absolutely similar to the question upon which they have to decide to-day. The only difference will be in the size of the holdings, and that is not of much importance.

Mr. J. GARDINER: I was deeply interested in the statement made by the right hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), to whom I listen at all times with respect, because I know he is one of the best informed Members
that this House possesses. But it is evident that even he occasionally has not perfect information, for on the question whether or not the farmers of Scotland desire to have a Land Court I must differ from the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet quoted as his authority a speech delivered by the Secretary of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I happen to be a member of that body, and know what took place when this subject was being discussed. There was a majority of one against the Land Court and in favour of arbitration, and I mention that fact to show that the Chamber of Agriculture itself was very evenly divided. When it comes to the Scottish National Farmers' Union I find they are unanimous on the subject, and agree that the Land Court is desirable rather than the old method of arbitration. So far, therefore, as Scotland is concerned, in its agricultural representative bodies, I claim we have the support of Scottish farmers for our plan. The Secretary for Scotland made it perfectly clear what the position of the Land Court is. I am delighted to think that we have at last a common view that the effect of the present Land Court in Scotland is beyond reproach. We have perfect confidence in its component parts, and I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will be wisely guided in the selection of the additional member that is required. If this Bill is going to effect the purposes for which it was introduced, I suggest there will not be nearly so many opportunities for arbitration as there are for decisions of the Land Court. If we are to have the security that the Bill is supposed to provide there will not be frequent opportunities to decide questions of difference between landlord and tenant. I hope the Bill will succeed in the direction not only of giving security of capital, but also security of tenure. Although I speak possibly from a farmer's point of view, I should like to say I have interviewed one or two of the largest landowners in Scotland, men whose names are known almost everywhere and are respected most highly, and these noblemen are absolutely in favour of the Land Court, the reason being, as they say, that it will give uniformity, which is a most desirable thing. Everybody, no matter on which side he sits, whether on the side of arbitration or of decision in the Land
Court, wants to feel that there is some standard that they can trust to to ensure that all the decisions will be equitable and fair. So far as the old method of arbitration is concerned, I am sure that anybody in close touch with agricultural life in Scotland will admit that in the markets and everywhere where agriculturists meet and discuss questions of arbitration, there is constant complaint of the decisions given by arbitrators simply because of the lack of uniformity which the Land Court will bring into being. I hope that my hon. Friends opposite who represent Scottish constituencies, and who talk about there being no Land Court in England, will recognise the fact that Scotland has not always been second in the race of progress from an agricultural point of view, and possibly, after all, the example we are giving England in our Land Court will be one which in a few years' time that country will be only too glad to follow.

Mr. FORD: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I represent in a small way the taxpayers of the country. My constituency is an urban constituency, and I have no brief either for landlord or tenant, but it does seem to me that if the Land Court is brought in for this purpose, we are bound to have a very large increase in the personnel and establishment and charges of the Land Court to the taxpayer, and at this time, when our minds are somewhat justly agitated about national economy, I do not think we ought to embark upon a scheme like this. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Gardiner), who everyone concedes is somewhat of an authority on agriculture, has said that we are not behind England in our country in agriculture, but I should like to point out that the system of arbitration has been one of the systems most enwrought in the whole fabric of Scottish life, especially in agriculture, and I do not think we are conceding anything to England when we ask that we should be allowed the same economical treatment that England is getting. If these intensely interesting subjects such as unexhausted manures come up, as a taxpayer, I say, let the gentlemen interested fight it out by arbitration, and do not ask us to pay the cost of keeping up a large court for their benefit. My hon. Friend opposite said something about complaints of lack of uniformity in de-
cisions, but complaints with regard to decisions in courts of any kind are always to be found, and I have hardly ever met a man yet who did not think there had been a miscarriage of justice and a lack of uniformity. In the interests of agriculturists themselves and of the general taxpayer, I would urge that we should avoid unnecessary expenditure and carry on in the way that has worked extremely well and has not put fresh burdens on the taxpayers for a generation or more.

Sir J. HOPE: The Secretary for Scotland has not really dealt with the crux of the difficulty. He praised and defended the Land Court, which had not been attacked; what we say is merely that the Land Court is quite an unsuitable body to carry out the additional duties proposed for it under this Bill without a huge expense and increase of establishment. What we asked the Secretary for Scotland was a definite answer to the question "How does he propose to work the adjustment of rent by the Land Court?" We have never had a satisfactory answer to that. There are only two ways of doing it, either by enormously increasing the number of members so that they can hold sittings in various parts of the country, or by appointing paid officials who will go and visit the farms on which the rent is to be adjusted, and report to the Land Court the result of their visits; and either course will enormously increase the cost to the ratepayers. As the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) has just said, we have had no answer to this. I asked the same question in Committee, and I got no answer, and I believe it has not been fully considered. I acknowledge that the Land Court are an excellent body individually, but they cannot do impossibilities, and at the present time it is well known that they have not overtaken their work in connection with small holdings.
Rents have to be fixed in Scotland at two particular times, namely, in May and in March, and at those times there will be a huge amount of work which it will be quite impossible for the Land Court to overtake. The arbiters, I submit, will be much cheaper, and in most cases if you leave the arbitrator as the final court of appeal in case of a difference of opinion there will be very little recourse
to arbitration. If you let them alone, landlord and tenant in most cases will not go to arbitration, but if you put in the Land Court over the head of the landlord and tenant, you are setting up a whole lot of officials who will be there in case they are wanted. They will have to find work for themselves in order to keep their job going, and it will be to their interest to force landlord and tenant to go to the Land Court to settle their differences. The Secretary for Scotland also made a considerable attack on the general principle of arbitration, and there he was attacking the English Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture did not speak on the Scottish Clause in Committee, but he spoke the following day in opposing the Land Court for Wales, and he said:
Fixity of tenure really renders necessary a Land Court; the two things practically go together. If you have anything in the nature of dual ownership, you must have somebody to decide on the respective properties of the landlord and the tenant, and the obvious way to do it is by a Land Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee, 22nd July, 1920, col. 719.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the conditions in Wales were the same as in Scotland and in England, but that they were not comparable to the crofting counties of Scotland, for which the Land Court was originally set up, and for which we say it is not superfluous, but because it is doing well the work for which it was set up, you are proposing to put upon it additional work which we say it cannot do, and which, if it does do it, will interfere with the work it is at present doing. Do English Members realise that the Land Court has to do with setting up small holdings throughout Scotland? The Prime Minister, in his Caxton Hall speech, had to go out of his way to tell agriculturists that he did not intend to impose a Land Court on the farmers and agriculturists of Great Britain. He said that what was proposed was that when notice was given, the tenancy should not be affected, but the new rent should be fixed either by agreement between the parties, or, failing agreement, by an arbitrator appointed in the usual way. Then there was applause from all the farmers present, and the Prime Minister added, "That, I need hardly tell you, is not a Land Court." All we ask is that the promise of the
Prime Minister shall be adhered to and that we shall not have a Land Court for this purpose.
I hope the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider his attitude on this matter. Does he mean to increase the members of the Land Court in number, or does he mean to have officials all over, or does he propose that the four men should sit in Edinburgh and decide the rent of a farm without seeing it, or without having the information from officials as to whether it is good or bad land? Perhaps also the Parliamentary Secretary will explain exactly why he opposes the Land Court for Wales and supports it for Scotland.

Dr. MURRAY: It is very distressing to a benevolent onlooker on this side to watch the break-up of the Coalition over this question, and I find that when the Government sticks to some line of progressive legislation they have always got to rely on this side of the House to save them from their friends. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down made a very ill-considered speech, if I may say so, and referred to the speeches of the Prime Minister, particularly his Caxton Hall speech. My hon. and gallant Friend should have remembered that the last time the Caxton Hall speech was mentioned here, the Prime Minister was standing behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, and when he heard the phrase, turned tail and ran away. "Caxton Hall" is now as dangerous a term as "Limehouse," and it is very ill-natured of the hon. Baronet opposite to have mentioned it. I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), who had some differences with his Liberal colleagues upon that Bench, and his object was to show that the Tory Codlin was the friend of people who want land, and not the Liberal Short. The Tories fought the Act of 1886 tooth and nail, led by the present Lord President of the Council. I do not deny that the Tories by themselves

produced good social legislation of this sort, and so did the Liberals by themselves, but we find that when the Liberals and the Tones come together to produce legislation, such as we have had in the past two years, it is all futile and sterile, and does no good to anybody.

I am going to support the Government, as usual when they are in difficulties, on this question of the Land Court. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs said the Land Court has been doing splendid work in regard to smaller holdings. In the old days the motto of the Tory party used to be, "For beer and the Bible," but they are now doing without the Bible. The old Book says: "He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much," and if the Land Court have been faithful in the smaller matter of small holdings and croftings, I think it is reasonable to argue that they will be faithful in this respect too. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument that the work of the Land Court is at present congested, and there is certainly a great deal of arrears of work in the Highlands. They want gingering up and strengthening, and I should be sorry if these additional duties which it is proposed to put upon them made the machine work with more difficulty and more slowly than at present; but I think it is a healthy development of land legislation that there should be an ad hoc authority of this sort to settle these questions, and after all, those hon. Members who are afraid of the Land Court need not go to the Land Court. They have the power of arbitration. I hope the Government will see to it that if this work is imposed on the Land Court, it will not in any way interfere with the present work in connection with small holdings and croftings, and with that reservation I support the position of the Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 74.

Division No. 371.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Barnston, Major Harry
Breese, Major Charles E.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Barrand, A. R.
Briant, Frank


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Briggs, Harold


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bromfield, William


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Brown, Captain D. C.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Cairns, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Cape, Thomas


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Casey, T. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Perring, William George


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pratt, John William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Purchase, H. G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jesson, C.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rendall, Athelstan


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Johnstone, Joseph
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Robertson, John


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rodger, A. K.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Kenyon, Barnet
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Duncannon, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edge, Captain William
Lawson, John J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T.)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Simm, M. T.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd, George Butler
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Spencer, George A.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Finney, Samuel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Foreman, Henry
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sutherland, Sir William


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Gardiner, James
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, T. (Middlesborougb, West)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Maddocks, Henry
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Glanville, Harold James
Mallalieu, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Tootill, Robert


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mills, John Edmund
Turton, E. R.


Green, Albert (Derby)
Moles, Thomas
Vickers, Douglas


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Greig, Colonel James William
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Waterson, A. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Weston, Colonel John W.


Grundy, T. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Wignall, James


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wintringham, T.


Hayday, Arthur
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wise, Frederick


Hayward, Major Evan
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Woolcock, William James U.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parker, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry



Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Pearce, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Captain Guest and Commander Eyres-Monsell.


NOES.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Falcon, Captain Michael
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Lorden, John William


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Betterton, Henry B.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Macquisten, F. A.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Forestier-Walker, L.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Henry S.
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera
Remnant, Sir James




Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Royce, William Stapleton
Starkey, Captain John R.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Rlpon)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stewart, Gershom
Younger, Sir George


Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)



Seddon, J. A.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Hope and


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Mr. Hugh Morrison.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Application to Ireland.)

This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(1) References to the Minister (except where they occur in relation to the appointment of Commissioners), shall be construed as references to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland (in this Section referred to as "the Department"):
(2) Part II. of this Act and the provisions amending Section nine of the Act of 1917 (other than the provisions of the new Sub-section to be inserted therein as to the rules of good husbandry) shall not apply:
(3) The Third Schedule to the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

(a) An order of the department under the said Schedule prescribing the minimum tillage portion of holdings may, in addition, prescribe the date or dates before which the sowing of that portion or any specified operation preliminary thereto is to be completed, and if in any year in which such order is in force the occupier of any holding to which the order applies does not complete the sowing of the minimum tillage portion or any other operation preliminary thereto which is specified in the order before the date prescribed in that behalf by the order he shall be deemed to have failed to cultivate the minimum tillage portion of the holding in that year, and the provisions of the said Schedule shall apply accordingly, with this modification, that any amount payable by way of penalty in respect of such failure shall be payable by the person who is occupier at the date aforesaid, notwithstanding any subsequent change of occupiers:
(b)The proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8 of the said Schedule is hereby repealed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I am very glad to see the Prime Minister on the Bench, because I hope he will listen to our reasons for moving this Amendment. Clause 27 applies to the part of the Act relating to the guarantee of prices to Ireland, but only a very moderate part dealing with control. I do not intend to say one word about the future relationship of this country with Ireland, but from the purely English point of view I do sub-
mit to the House that we are extremely ill-advised in this Act to guarantee certain prices to Ireland for a definite number of years, without any control, as compared with the control that we have for agriculture in this country and laid down in the Bill. We have passed a Home Rule Bill through this House, and the future relationship between this country and Ireland, we contend, is somewhat indefinite. In these circumstances I think it is our duty to the British taxpayer and to the British eater of bread, in other words, the whole British public, not to guarantee this high price for a definite number of years without some quid pro quo which is not provided in the Act. The amount of the control which the Irish farmers will have is nothing in comparison with the amount that the English farmers will have, yet they are guaranteeing these prices. In these circumstances I think it is extremely foolish to give this guarantee. Of course, the hon. Members from Ireland naturally are very pleased, but they are not in their places either to oppose or to support my Amendment. They are quite happy to take our money, whether from the north-east of Ulster, or from any other part of Ireland, especially when they get it without the control. To guarantee this price to Irish agriculturists is simply extraordinary, and I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I am really surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend twitting hon. and gallant Members at being absent from the Report stage seeing that he himself was a member of the Committee and I am informed did not attend any stage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I particularly asked to be taken off the Committee, as I have been on the sea all my life and do not know anything about agriculture.

Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, judging from his past, that that would not be any obstacle in his way. The proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend amounts to this: Ireland has been under the Corn Production Act during the War and has been on precisely the same footing as England and Scotland. This provision simply continues that state of affairs. That is the short proposition.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether some member of the Government is able to give some information whether they expect the Home Rule Act to pass or not and, if it does, what happens then? Are we to continue this guarantee and to give this subsidy to the new Irish Parliament when it is set up? What object is there in passing an Act which will never be put into operation because, presumably, the Home Rule Act will come into force concurrently with this Act. I do think this is a question upon which we ought to have some more definite reply than we have already received.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: The hon. and gallant Member has moved his Amendment very largely on the ground that the Act would give to Ireland a guarantee without any control. That is the more reason why we should let Ireland have it, because without control she is much more likely to produce more crops. If she is free from control, then I think she will have a very much better chance of doing well in agriculture. It is control which I think brings the condemnation of agriculturists.

Major O'NEILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is under a misconception, as was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, who moved the Amendment. As a matter of fact, there is considerable control in Ireland over the matter of cultivation under the Corn Production Act.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said so.

Major O'NEILL: Possibly that it is not quite so extreme a form of control as is introduced in this Bill in England and Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: They do not enforce it in Ireland.

Major O'NEILL: Yes, they do. Control was certainly in force during the War
Quite apart from that I really do not see why the hon. and gallant Member for Hull who, on most questions, votes as a friend of Ireland, should come forward now in absolute contradiction to the wishes of the farming population in Ireland, who, after all, compose the great mass of the people in the South and West. I do not know why he suggests, for an unknown reason, that they should be deprived of the advantages which would accrue from this subsidy if it ever became payable. During the War—whatever may have been Ireland's contribution in regard to men and whatever may have been her feeling towards this country—at any rate so far as the production of food was concerned a larger proportion of extra crops were grown in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is great enthusiasm for this Bill among the Irish farmers, but in so far as it does guarantee minimum prices for wheat and oats I think we are entitled to have it. I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND: I have always understood that guaranteed prices and control went together. I do not believe there will be any control worth twopence under this Bill in Ireland. I cannot imagine any Irish Parliament doing anything it is told to do by any English authority at the present time, and I do not think there is any chance of their doing that while the present Government is in power.

Mr. MOLES: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has an astounding opinion about an Irish Parliament when he suggests that it would not know on which side its bread was buttered An Irish Parliament will be just as sound on this matter as any other bodies. The right hon. Gentleman can take it that the Irishman knows which side his bread is buttered as well as anybody else when he is aware that he is going to be quoted a good price for the commodities which he produces. I did not hear the arguments of the mover of the Amendment, but if they were the customary type put forward in moving Amendments in that particular quarter, I do not think the House will take long to come to a decision on the matter. Throughout the War you depended, in great part, on Ireland for your food supply. You may have another war, and it will be good sense to take care that you endeavour to pre-
serve and conserve the source of supply, which you may again have to call on, and that you should endeavour, therefore, to include Ireland in the Bill.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: We are entitled to ask for some reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). What is going to happen if the Home Rule Bill becomes law, as we have reason to suppose it will, within the next month? How long is control going on, and who is going to pay the subsidy? Are we still going to guarantee Irish wheat; are we going to pay the subsidy, and is the control to pass into the hands of the Irish Parliament? It is a point of very considerable substance, and, in not replying, the Government are not treating us with that respect and courtesy we are entitled to receive from them. It is quite true we are only a small minority here, but when we put a point of some importance, we are entitled to an answer. I quite admit that Ireland did very well in supplying food during the War. It must be remembered, however, that the incentive was the high prices obtainable in this country. If they here had been below the pre-War prices, Ireland might not have done quite so well as she did.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 28.—(Commencement, Repeal, and Short Title.)

(1) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "September nineteen hundred and twenty" and to insert instead thereof the words "January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
When the Bill was originally brought in the hope was that it might be passed before the Adjournment of the House, in which case the 1st of September, 1920, would have been the date for the commencement of the measure. Owing to the delay of carrying the Bill through the House, however, it was found necessary to postpone that date, and to fix January 1st of next year as the time of coming into operation.

Major M. WOOD: I am very sorry that this Amendment has been put down. It will deprive a large number of farmers throughout the country of the compensation which they expected. I do not want to discuss the point at length, because I have already urged it in Committee upstairs and in this House. After the Caxton Hall speech a year ago, a great number of notices to quit were served on farmers all over the country, because landlords thought they would probably be able to make their notices effective before this Act come into operation. In nearly every case those notices were to become effective on the 28th November; at any rate, that is the case in Scotland. If this Amendment is to go into the Bill it will mean that all these farmers are going to lose the advantage of the Bill. If that is the case, they have been tricked by the Caxton Hall speech. I protest against this holding out of a promise to the farmers and then taking it away from them.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really in error in thinking that that result would follow. By an Amendment, already carried in this House, no notice will be effective unless it is given after the 20th May. That means it will not be effective as regards quitting, in the case of twelve months' notice, until the 20th of May next year. Therefore, the alteration in date would not in any way have the effect he suggests.

Major WOOD: That is drawing a distinction between a tenant who is to receive six months' notice and a tenant who is to receive twelve months' notice. Why draw that distinction? Is not the one tenant as much entitled to notice as the other?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there were a large number of notices which will not now come within the Act. I merely wish to remove a wrong impression that might be conveyed outside this House by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has conveyed the impression that the Bill has not been passed by 1st September owing to the delay in passing it through this House. That is not the cause. The real cause is that the Government did not introduce the Bill early enough in the year. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman remains, as adducing the only reason for this Bill not
having passed, then next it will be suggested that some hon. Members have purposely delayed its passage. Of course, that is not so.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Part 1 of this Act shall he construed as one with the Act of 1917 and the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918, and those Acts and Part 1 of this Act may he cited together as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 to 1920.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is right to leave in this Amendment the words, "the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918," because that is repealed by this Bill. The Amendment says that this Bill shall be deemed to be consequent on the Act of 1917, and the amending Act of 1918. In the Schedule you repeal the Amending Act of 1918, and I do not see, therefore, how it can be consequent upon it.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Unless there be some reason for keeping those words in,

FIRST SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1908.


Enactment to be Amended.
Nature of Amendment.


Section one
…
…
In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act," where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "whether the improvement was or was not an improvement which he was required to make by the terms of his tenancy"; and in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) there shall be inserted after the word "crops," where that word first occurs, the words "grown on and."


Section fifteen
…
…
In Sub-section (1), after the word "expended" there shall be inserted the words "and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge."


Section sixteen
…
…
After the words "Act shall" there shall be inserted the words "where the charge is obtained by the landlord."


Section twenty-three
…
In paragraph (iii) the words "for labourers" shall be omitted.


Section thirty-one
…
…
After the word "compensation" there shall be inserted the words "For disturbance or."


Section forty-eight
…
…
For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."


First Schedule
…
…
In paragraph (26) there shall be added at end thereof the words "in so far as the amount of the temporary pasture laid down exceeds the amount of the temporary pasture on the holding at the commencement of the tenancy for which the tenant did not pay compensation."


Second Schedule
…
…
In paragraph 10, for the words "sooner than one month or later than two months," there shall be substituted the words "later than one month."

in respect of matters which have already accrued and in respect of which the Amendment of the Act of 1917 by the Act of 1918 is necessary, I think the hon. and gallant Member is right, and there is no sense in keeping the words in. We are much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, and perhaps he will move to leave out the words, "the Corn Production Amendment Act, 1918."

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I am afraid I cannot move it in that form, because I have a subsequent Amendment which says that the words shall not be deleted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (1) insert:
(2) Part I. of this Act shall he construed as one with the Act of 1917, and that Act and Part I of this Act may be cited together as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 to 1920.

At the end of Sub-section (1), after the words last added, insert
Part II of this Act shall be construed as one with the Act of 1908, and that Act and Part II of this Act may be cited together as the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1908 and 1920."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]
In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, the references to Sections fifteen, twenty-three and thirty-one of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, shall not apply; for the references to Sections sixteen and forty-eight of that Act there shall be substituted references to Sections fourteen and thirty-five respectively of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; and Subsection (1) of Section thirteen of the Agri-

Section five
…
…
…
The words "in respect of any improvement comprised in the First Schedule hereto" shall be omitted.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "Section fifteen," after "(1)" ["in Sub-section (1)"], to insert the words"
after the word 'hereto,' where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or in respect of compensation for disturbance,' and.
This is only to enable the landlord who has to pay compensation for disturbance under this Act to obtain the same charge on his land that he now is able to obtain under the Section in the Act of 1908. Hon. Members will remember that in respect of compensation that has to be paid by the landlord who has a limited interest, such as a tenancy for life, as between him and his successors in title, he is able to make a charge that stands good against those who succeed in the title. These words are necessary for the purpose of enabling a similar charge to be made in respect of compensation in this Act. It really is a matter of machinery to carry out a principle already embodied in the Act of 1908.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph beginning "Section forty-eight," to insert the words
After paragraph (17) there shall be added '(18) The special cleaning of unduly foul and weedy land.'
I do not want to waste the time of the House in going into this matter, but I submit this is another reasonable subject for full compensation.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the Mover and the Seconder will agree with me, upon more careful consideration of the Amendment, that it would be rather unfortunate to insert these words. If the land was foul when the tenant took it, then probably that would be a matter

cultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908, shall be amended by the insertion after the words "or any part thereof," wherever occurring, of the words "and of the expense of executing and registering the same."

Amendment made: After the paragraph beginning "Section one" insert a new paragraph—

that would be taken into consideration when fixing the rent. If, on the other hand, he himself allowed the land to get foul after he took it the probability is that that was due to neglect of his duties. When you look at the Amendment and consider the words "special cleaning of unduly foul and weedy land" and try to give expression to the meaning of the words, and as to what is special cleaning and what is unduly foul and weedy land, I think you are up against a difficulty. Under the circumstances I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, at the beginning of the paragraph "First Schedule," to insert
After '(16) Erection of wireworks in hop gardens,' there shall be inserted:—

(16a) Provision of permanent sheep-dipping accommodation;
(16b) Removal of bracken, gorse, tree roots, boulders or other like obstructions to cultivation; and"
If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see a number of Amendments which are directed to the purpose we have here in view. My right hon. Friend was asked to consider this matter very carefully, and he has chosen the words which I have here, and I think they really cover what I may say is the greatest common measure of agreement upon this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the length he has gone in this matter, but there are one or two of the provisions in the Amendments standing lower on the Order Paper which I should like to have been able to move. I presume, if this Amendment is passed, it will not be in order to move them, as they will be cut out. If that is so, all I can do is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will not specially consider the points I desire to see put forward. If the right
hon. Gentleman cannot provide now, I trust he will consider what may be done in relation to these several important matters in another place.

Sir E. POLLOCK: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is too indefinite to be accepted. What the words of the Amendment endeavour to deal with, or are meant to effect, are ordinary farm operations. I find the words very difficult to construe, and if they are placed in Statute, it is by no means easy to say what their effect will be. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be content with having achieved a success, and not ask for a triumph.

Major M. WOOD: I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the length he has gone, but there is one important point which has not been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment. These particular improvements which have been selected have been put not into Part III of the Schedule as was proposed, but into Part I. There is a great difference between Part I and III, and no mention was made of this by my right hon. Friend in moving the Amendment. It means a great difference in the value of the concessions made, because had they been in Part III the improvements would have been compensated for whether the consent of the landlord had been given or not. As they have been put in now, the consent of the landlord is required, or in the event of no consent being given, the tenant has to go to the agricultural committee and ask them to give a decision against the landlord. That is very unfortunate, because it places the tenant in a difficult position. He is compelled to appeal to an outside body against his landlord. That will not make for friendly relations between the tenant and the landlord. I very much regret that when the Government went so far to meet us in the selection of improvements they did not see fit to put them into Part III.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to speak on this Amendment, I shall be glad if he will explain to us the reasons he has for not accepting some of the improvements we have named in our Amendments. Some of them I think are very good. I think we are entitled to some explanation as to these special improvements which have been rejected by him. Finally there is a very small point,
but I think it is perhaps more important than it looks. It is always desirable that these Acts of Parliament should be made as intelligible as possible to all those most vitally concerned. There is in this Amendment a reference in (16, b) to bracken, gorse, etc. Gorse is quite unknown in Scotland. No Scottish farmer reading that particular Sub-section would know what was meant by it. Gorse in Scotland is called whin, and it is a pity you should drive the Scottish farmer to a dictionary to understand your meaning. It would be well worth while to put in the words "gorse or whin" so as to make it a little more intelligible. With regard to the Amendment about haulage or other work done by a tenant, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) referring to the question in Committee said: "I think it is a most convenient arrangement that the tenant should do the haulage, for this system has been carried out for so long" and so on.

Mr. GARDINERM: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what has been the custom in the past in respect to haulage. If houses or buildings have been erected on a farm it has been customary for the farmer to provide the haulage labour for that purpose and it has been found very, very helpful that the landlord should have this service. If you do not arrange for it the helpful work done by the farmers in the past will not continue in the future, and I would like if possible to have the Amendment referred to included, as everything which conduces to good relationships between farmer and tenant should be maintained.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "First Schedule" to leave out the words "the amount of the temporary pasture laid down exceeds the amount" and to insert instead thereof the words
the value of the temporary pasture on the holding at the time of quitting exceeds the value.
Pasture land varies very much in its value, and this Amendment seeks to estimate the pasture at its true value and not by its amount.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: This is a very valuable concession, and I desire to thank the Government for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph beginning "First Schedule," to insert the words "Special regard shall be paid to the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers."
This an important Amendment. Experiments have shown that the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers effect a very great improvement, and I hope the Government will be able to accept this proposal.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I do not think these words are necessary. You want to have something that will grow well, and, so far as you can grow natural grasses to that extent, you increase the pasture and its value. We have already accepted words to the, effect that we are to estimate the pasture which is grown by its value; and, incidentally, one of the features which makes the pasture valuable is that it is composed of natural grasses which are likely to thrive on the land. Any arbitrator with knowledge would pay attention to the sowing of natural grasses as being far more likely to be successful, and, therefore, any compensation in respect of it would be calculated on that basis. With regard to the actual words of my hon. and gallant

SECOND SCHEDULE.
ENACTMENTS REPEALED.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
Extent of Repeal.


7 & Geo. 5, c. 45.
The Corn Production Act, 1917.
Sub-section (1) of Section two; in Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words from" (b) that for the purpose of" to the words "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Subsection the words "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in Sub-section (3) of that Section the words "make such Order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the Order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Subsection (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or Order made under this Section or"; Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen.


8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 35.
The corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918.
The whole Act.

Friend's Amendment, I find great difficulty in ascertaining how the arbitrator is to pay "special regard" to the sowing out of natural grasses and clovers, or what the effect of "special regard" really is. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will recognise that we have in reality covered the point already in the Bill.

Mr. GARDINER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having looked at the matter in such a fair and reasonable manner. When you ask that special regard shall be paid to any particular matter in a valuation, I am afraid you are doing something which is not always desirable. So far as the sowing of natural grasses and clovers are concerned, I think that in the past there has not been sufficient value placed upon the improvements which have been made in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman can possibly consider the suggestion which is contained in this Amendment, I hope he will do so.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: After the word "amended" ["shall be amended by the insertion after the words 'or any part thereof'"] insert the words "by the insertion after the word 'hereto,' of the words 'or in respect of compensation for disturbance and.'"—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the beginning of the Schedule to insert the words:


14 & 15 Vict., c. 25.
The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851.
In Section one, the words from "Provided always," to the end of the Section.


It is necessary to eliminate the words which stand in Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851. As we are dealing in this Bill with the notice to quit, in order to clear up any ambiguity, it is necessary to remove the words which I now move to omit.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph beginning "7 and 8 George V., c. 46," insert the words "in the Third Schedule, the proviso to paragraph (a) of Article 8."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the last paragraph of this Schedule. The Bill proposes to repeal the Corn Production (Amendment) Act of 1918, and I wish to leave out the repealing of that Act. The ploughing up Orders have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and they will continue under that Act, and compensation will be awarded under the provisions of the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918. If you repeal the Corn Production (Amendment) Act I do not quite see where a person will have to go to claim compensation. I am referring to the ploughing up Orders in respect to claims which have already arisen, and they do not know what the loss is at the present time.

Mr. SPEAKER: Would this Amendment involve an increase in the charge? I would like the hon. and gallant Member to say who would be responsible for the compensation under his proposal to continue the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, which provides for compensation in certain cases. Who is going to pay that compensation?

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: There is no suggestion that the compensation will be taken away, but I want to know under which Act will the claims I have mentioned come, whether under this Bill or the old Act?

Sir E. POLLOCK: If the hon. and gallant Member will turn to Clause 28, Sub-section (2), he will see the following provision:
(2) The enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
That is what we are dealing with at the present moment. The same Clause, under Sub-section (c) provides:
The right of any person to recover compensation in respect of anything done or suffered under the said powers before the commencement of this Act.
These are provisions which the repeal does not prejudice or affect.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: If the right hon. Gentleman says my point is already covered, then I am satisfied.

Sir E. POLLOCK: It is.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee and on Consideration, be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause 4 and the Clauses 'Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908,' and 'Dwelling-houses occupied by workmen employed in agriculture,' and in respect of the Amendments and new Clauses standing in the name of Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, and that in Committee on the re-committed Bill the Chairman in respect of Clause 4 do put forthwith, without Debate, the Question, 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' and that in respect of the new Clause,' Power to enforce proper cultivation,' he shall put only the Question, 'That the Clause be added to the Bill,' which shall be decided without debate."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

8.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: I understand that on this re-committal Motion only one speech is allowed for and against. I do not oppose this Motion, because I think it is on the whole quite reasonable. I have been in the House for fourteen years, and I do not remember any case in which a recommittal Motion has stated before that no discussion may take place on a new Clause which is moved. I do not think it is an unreasonable proposal on this occasion, because I think it is for the convenience of everybody that the Clause,
as amended, should be substituted for what we have already got in the Bill. But it would seem to me, but for the special circumstances of this case, to be rather a strong order to have a recommittal Motion which could only be discussed to a very limited extent.

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not take this Motion as a Motion for re-committal such as was contemplated by the Standing Order. This Motion contains a variety of important matters, and therefore I could not take it as one coming within the ten minutes Rule.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I am doing this for the purpose of inserting later the whole of Clause 9 of the Corn Production Act as amended—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, by the terms of his own Motion, cannot make a speech.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.—(Application of Act to Cottage on Holdings under Act of 1908.)

Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in agriculture on the holding, whether it is so occupied under a contract of tenancy or not, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house or garden were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant and the weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house.

Provided that—

(1) compensation shall not be payable under this Section if notice to terminate the tenancy or occupation is given on account of the employment of the workman having been
332
terminated by reason of his misconduct, and such reason shall be substituted for the reasons specified in Sub-section (1) of the said Section; and
(2) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section seven shall not apply; and
(3) where the tenancy or occupation of the workman is terminated by reason of a notice to quit given to the tenant of the holding and compensation for disturbance is recoverable by him from his landlord, the compensation payable under this Section to the workman by the tenant of the holding shall he recoverable by the tenant of the holding from the landlord as part of the compensation so recoverable.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the word "Where" ["Where a dwelling-house forming part of a holding"], to insert the words "the occupation of."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to this new Clause, which was put in on Consideration, which are entirely verbal.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "is occupied by a workman employed by the tenant of the holding in," and to insert instead thereof the words "has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workman employed by him."

Mr. RENDALL: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay a little attention to this word "allow." In the original Amendment put down by the hon. Member on my right (Mr. Royce), the word "occupied" was used. The right hon. Gentleman makes the word "allowed," and that seems to me to limit the force of the Amendment. If a farmer lets a house to a labourer for money, that would take the labourer and the cottage out of the benefit of this Amendment, and I think, therefore, the word "occupied" ought to be used there instead of "allowed." You have got the word "occupation" before and "occupation" after, and if you have the word "allowed" here it is not consistent with the word "occupation" elsewhere, and, I think, limits the force of the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not see how I can insert the word "occupied." It would read "if the occupation of a house…. has been occupied." We have already inserted it in line 1, which reads
"where the occupation of a house," etc. We are discussing purely verbal points and I have taken the best draughtman's opinion, and I am informed that this is the proper form. We have already used the word "occupation," and the hon. Member will see, therefore, that there is no fear of cases being cut out which he thinks may be cut out. Certainly it is not the intention of the Government that they should be.

Mr. ACLAND: I think the fact that later on the phrase is used "whether under contract of tenancy or not" makes it clear that this refers to all cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "it is so occupied" ["whether it is so occupied under a contract"], and insert the words "the occupation is."

After the word "not" ["under a contract of tenancy or not"], insert the words "and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or garden" ["if the dwelling house or garden."]

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Why leave out "or garden"?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not know why the words "or garden" ever got in, because the Clause begins, "Where a dwelling house." There is nothing about garden. Had there been "or garden" at the beginning, there would have been some reason for putting in "or garden" here. But as there was no "or garden" at the commencement of the Clause, it really has no meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
weekly rent were a sum equal to the difference between the rate of wages paid to the occupier and the rate of wages which would have been payable if the occupier had not the benefit of the occupation of the dwelling-house,
and insert instead thereof the words "notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "notice to terminate the tenancy or occu-
pation is given on account," and to insert instead thereof the words
(a) the notice to terminate the occupation is given before the expiration of six weeks from the commencement of the occupation; or
(b) the tenant of the holding has before giving the notice obtained from the district wages committee, or a sub-committee to which power in that behalf has been delegated by the committee, a certificate that the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient to enable the holding to be cultivated properly; or
(c) the employment of the workmen is for a year, half-year, or other definite period; or
(d) the notice is given by reason:
We come now to the really important Amendments. It may be remembered that when I accepted this new Clause, which was moved by my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce), I stated that the Government accepted it in principle, but would have to reconsider the details, and suggested that that process might be done in another place. However, the House was anxious that the reconsideration should take place here, and for that reason I agreed to recommit the Bill in respect of this particular Clause. We do not for one moment deviate from the principle that, so far as it can be applied Clause 7 of the Bill should apply to a case of a tied cottage, but we have to bring the case of the tied cottage into line with the rest of the Bill, mutatis mutandis. In the Clause as moved by hon. Members opposite they had only one exception, and that was where the workman had been guilty of misconduct, but it is clear that there must be some other exceptions, and I have put down certain Amendments dealing with those exceptions. The first is where a man has only been in occupation for a period of less than six weeks. It would really be unreasonable if a labourer were allowed to occupy a tied cottage, and it was discovered, after a few days or a week, that he was not equal to the work he had undertaken, that he should get this full compensation, and the idea of inserting a period of six weeks is to impose what I may call a probationary period. This is eminently desirable unless abuse is to take place. The question of whether he is competent to do the work may also arise within the six weeks in the case of a new man, or it might arise at a later period. We consider that his competency should be subjected to some kind of test, and it is as to whether he
is necessary to enable the holding to be cultivated properly. That is a very similar condition to that in Clause 7 with regard to a farm tenant, and as to whether he is or is not cultivating the farm in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. In the case of the tenant we introduced an arbitrator as judge, but we do not wish to introduce arbitration here, because it is very expensive, and would be a very big burden for a working man. We find that there is another body which is quite competent to deal with these cases, and which does already deal with similar cases, namely, the wages committee of the district, on which both employers and employed are represented. You have a wages committee in the district, and you have sub-committees who, in the case of exemptions from the standard rate of wages through the physical inability of the man to do the work, are permitted to give certificates to that effect. We propose, therefore, that the body which grants those certificates at the present time shall be the body to say whether this certificate should or should not be given in respect of a particular workman. I observe that the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Royce) has put down an Amendment to my Amendment, proposing that the workman shall have the opportunity of appearing before the Wages Committee in person, and that under certain circumstances, if the certificate is refused, and if, in fact, it is held that there was no ground for asking for it, his expenses shall be paid and he shall be entitled to recover them from the tenant. When we reach that Amendment I shall be prepared, subject to certain verbal reservations, to accept it.
Then there is a third exception, which is put in to meet the case, which is common in Scotland and also in some parts of the North of England, where a workman is engaged for a definite term. It may be a year—which is very common in the case of Scottish farm servants—or half a year, or some other definite period. In such a case the workman has no expectation that he will remain in the cottage beyond the period for which he is engaged. He enters the employment for a definite period, and he occupies the cottage for that period.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: How short a period would be covered by the word "definite"?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is rather a conundrum I should say that it would be any period which is definitely laid down. I will, however, take an opportunity of looking into that matter. Then there is a further Amendment on the Paper, to which I had better refer now, although, of course, we shall have a discussion upon it later. The difficult question arises as to what the compensation is to be. In the case of a farm tenancy we say that it shall be one year's rest plus the cost of removal. The one year's rent, although, no doubt, it is higher on some farms than on others, is a fairly definite thing to understand. We are dealing here, however, with a case where occupation of a cottage is allowed really as part of the remuneration of the workman, and in such cases the rent varies largely from farm to farm. I know of cases where the rent is 6d. per week, and others where it may be 3s. or more. Therefore we have sought to fix a definite sum, and we have taken the amount which is allowed by the Wages Board of the District for the benefit of a cottage. I believe that that is usually, although not invariably, 3s. per week, and the compensation, therefore, would be 52 times 3s., or whatever is the amount allowed by the Wages Board for the benefit of the cottage. Those are the Amendments which I desire, on behalf of the Government, to move to this Clause. I believe that they will be generally accepted, and I think that they will make the Clause a workable Clause, while they will confer a great benefit upon the workmen in various parts of the country, and will, so far as is possible under the very difficult conditions existing, apply the principle of compensation for disturbance which is contained in Clause 7 to the case of tied cottages which arises under this Clause.

Mr. RENDALL: With regard to the proposed paragraph (c), I think that the words "or other definite period" are very dangerous words. It seems to me that they enable practically everything that is now being done to go on being done. It is true that in the South of England the ordinary tenancy is a weekly or a monthly tenancy, but there will be nothing to prevent an ordinary employer of agricultural labour from making a definite
arrangement for a definite period, say, of one month or fourteen days. If he should do that, he would be given the legal right, under this Bill, to obtain possession of that house, and, therefore, the value of this Bill would be gone. If the right hon. Gentleman must use these words, I would suggest that he should define them and lay down a definite period, which certainly should not be less than three months. I think it would be fair to leave it as it generally is in those cases in which farmers engage labour for a term, that term being generally a year or half a year. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave out the words "or other definite period" he would be doing all that is necessary to protect those farmers in the North of England and in Scotland who have been accustomed to these long hiring arrangements.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree that these words as they stand would enable a coach and four to be driven through the Clause. Any farmer anywhere can make a yearly agreement with a man if he chooses, and if, by the mere fact of making a yearly agreement, he avoids liability to pay compensation under this Clause, I cannot see what is to prevent him from doing it. When a man hires a labourer he can always say, "The condition of my giving you this tied cottage is that we shall have a yearly agreement." If the man misbehaves, he can always terminate it before the year is up, but the fact remains that it is a yearly hiring. I do not say that it will occur in all cases, but it seems to me that it is exactly the same as moving an Amendment proposing that the liability to pay compensation might be voided by agreement. The promoters of the Bill have set their faces against anything of that kind, and it is evidently quite outside the spirit of the Bill. I do not see why a labourer should be allowed to contract out of the Bill. He is just as liable as a tenant to have pressure brought to bear upon him. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to some Amendments further down the Paper. Will it be in order for me to discuss those now, or ought I to wait until they are put?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be better to wait until we get to the further Amendments, although I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to explain them as a whole.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point of view, because I think that these words might make the Clause quite nugatory.

Mr. ACLAND: I think that these proposals are on the whole considerable improvements, but there are two points that I should like to make. I think that it will be a good deal safer to leave out, as has been suggested, the words "or other definite period." I do not know of any periods to which this proviso would relate except the yearly or half-yearly periods, and it would be fatal to the whole purpose of the Clause if there were any chance of its being held that employment for a period such as a week or a fortnight is a definite period which would really make the Clause of no effect. I do not go so far as to think that it would be better to take out paragraph (c), because I think that in the main the worker, in districts of England and Wales where employment by the year or half-year is not customary, is in a strong enough position to defend himself against any proposal of the employer to make the employment yearly or half-yearly, and thus to exempt himself from the operation of this Clause. After all, I suppose the thing would work both ways. If you had contracted with the workman to make his employment for a year—that he should be given so much wages for a year's work—and then without good and sufficient cause terminated his employment earlier than a year, you would be liable to give him the whole of the wages you contracted to give him, so that I do not think any farmer would lightly try to drive a coach and four through this Clause in districts where it is not customary to employ men by the year by trying to make the employment by the year or the half-year the customary employment.
The other point I want to make is that the powers possessed by the District Wages Committees are delegated to them by the Agricultural Wages Board. This proviso gives the District Wages Committees definite powers without any reference at all to the Board. I am not surt that that may not be quite reasonable. It has certainly been found that in a parallel case, where the District Wages Committees are by delegation from the Board the authority to deal with permits of exemption, the Board has been quite
safe in allowing that matter to be dealt with by the district committees on their own authority without any appeal or supervisory jurisdiction being possessed by the Wages Board itself, and this seems to me a parallel case which ought to be decided on local knowledge, and probably will be decided quite well by the subcommittees. In some cases this work of granting these permits of exemption to men suffering from physical or mental infirmity has been quite satisfactorily dealt with by sub-committees of one, and the whole District Wages Committee is perfectly willing to delegate to one man, a worker or an employer, the duty of deciding on these permit questions, which shows that there must be very good feeling between the two sides of the District Wages Committee. I am sure Government does not want to do anything which looks like going behind the Wages Board, and no doubt this matter will come up for consideration at the next meeting of the Wages Board, and the Government will, perhaps, inform them officially that they propose this. There will be a meeting of the Wages Board, as it happens, before the Bill comes back from another place, but just so as to save, I do not say the dignity, but the position as it at present is, that the powers of district committees are only possessed by delegation of the Wages Board, I mention the point now.

Sir J. HOPE: I understand that the compensation which the workmen may claim in lieu of the rent is provided for, but will he not be able to claim under this proposal compensation for forcible removal of furniture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.

Sir J. HOPE: That being so, supposing there is agreement, he will go to arbitration on a claim for cost of removal in England, and he will not in Scotland. I think that is correct.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is that so?

The CHAIRMAN: Will not that come better on the next Amendment but one? In order not to mix things up we had better take it there.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) has said, we have not the slightest desire
to go behind the Agricultural Wages Board and to dictate to them what they ought to do, but we think this is a proper use to be made of the Agricultural Wages Committees, and I will certainly follow the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion and give notification to the Wages Board of this proposal.

Mr. ACLAND: There is a point as to whether the Wages Board itself ought not to have a supervisory jurisdiction to see that the committees are doing what we want them to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly, I will take that course. With regard to the words "or other definite period," I quite agree. I think that is far too vague, and therefore I am willing to leave those words out, and there are some other words which I think could be added which will go some way to meet the point of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman), "and the occupation is terminated at the end of the period." That, I think, will prevent the contracting-out which he has in mind. It means that a man will not be able simply by saying, "I engage you for a year or half-year," to escape compensation and give notice at any time. The compensation will be payable always, except when a man has moved out of the cottage at the end of this definite period of a year or half a year. That, I think, will be a very great improvement and will make the Clause much more watertight than it was before.

The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that I have not yet decided the question to leave out the words at present in the Clause? The insertion of the right hon. Gentleman's words will come a little later.

Captain FITZROY: Sub-section (1) says, "the employment of the workman having been terminated by reason of his misconduct." Who is going to be the judge of the workman's misconduct? In this Clause it does not give any authority who is to state whether misconduct has been committed. Is it to be purely on the word of the farmer who says he has discharged him because of misconduct? There must surely be some authority to whom he will have to apply to give him a certificate entitling him to give this notice because of misconduct. I think that wants clearing up.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question of misconduct will be one for the arbitrator.

Captain FITZROY: Ought it not to be put in?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, because it is laid down in Clause 7 that where there is a dispute all questions shall be settled by an arbitrator. Therefore, when it is a question of misconduct, it will be an arbitrator. In the other case, where it is simply a question whether or not it is desirable in the interests of good farm management that a man should no longer be employed, the question will be settled by the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. RENDALL: The right hon. Gentleman's last speech has really made the whole Clause of very little value. The farmer has only to say the dispute is one of misconduct and apparently the advantage of the Wages Board coming in as arbitrator disappears altogether. It would be much fairer if you put the whole matter before the Wages Board, which is a perfectly impartial body composed of farmers, labourers, and representatives of the Board of Agriculture, and which is perfectly capable of making wise and just decisions. It is local and it is easy for all the evidence to be brought before it, and it seems to me to allow this particular matter, which is going to be the most contentious of all matters—alleged misconduct—to be brought before an arbitrator, and therefore to make it a most expensive method of deciding this point will be the method which will have to be adopted when there is a case of alleged misconduct. Therefore, it would be an Amendment disadvantageous to the labourer. It seems altogether unfair to put this particular matter into the hands of the arbitrator. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter to the Wages Board.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says. There is, of course, a great difference between a question of misconduct and the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient so that the holding should be cultivated properly. I agree it is a difficult point, and I am quite prepared to undertake that the point which my hon. Friend has put shall be reconsidered.

Major M. WOOD: If the words "definite period" are left out men who are employed for a broken period of three months or nine months are going to be outside this provision. It seems to be very dangerous if a farmer is to be prevented from taking on men between terms, as they say in Scotland. It would be much better to leave the words in and add "not greater than one year."

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I have already expressed my views on the question of compensation as between landlord and tenant and I think it is equally ridiculous for farmers and labourers to have to indulge in this sort of question. I cannot imagine the House of Commons discussing a greater piece of perfect nonsense. But as the Government have brought the proposal in let us discuss it and let us understand what we are going to do. I understand no compensation is payable if the employment of the workman is for a year or half year and the man goes away at the end of the particular period. Then in that case no compensation will ever be payable at all because the man will be engaged for a year or half year. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I think so. Other hon. Members will have the opportunity of putting their case. The man will go away at the end of the time not of his own free will but because he is not re-engaged. If you refuse to keep on a tenant of an agricultural holding you have got to pay compensation and to give a year's notice. Here is a man taken for a definite term and you are going to get out of compensation merely by this provision as to being taken on for a year or half a year. He goes away against his wish and no compensation is payable. It is perfectly nonsensical putting a compensation Clause down and a provision of that character into it. I am astonished that the Government have consented to any such proposal knowing that it is not worth the paper it is written on and is simply a sham and a fraud.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot agree that the arbitrator is a more suitable person to settle the question of misconduct than to settle the question as to whether the termination of the occupation is necessary or expedient. I should think the arbitrator would be the more suitable man to say whether there were advantages in terminating the application to enable the holding to be properly culti
vated than to decide on a question of misconduct as between employer and employed. I think that the whole of this Clause is most difficult and muddling. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has just said that the Government have entered on a path of trying to compensate everybody all round at somebody else's expense. It is difficult to stop that when you once begin and we are not going to stop here. There will be lots of people left out who will think that they have just as much right to compensation as other people. They will put in a claim and we will go on until we are all living on compensation. It will be a sort of vicious circle. It really is more ridiculous than anything one could conceive. Still I suppose we must try for the credit of this House to see that the provision is intelligible and does what it professes to do. I thought when a year and half year were put forward that that would meet the case, but I do not think it will because what difference does it make whether a man is engaged by the week or the month or the year or the half year because he will not be asked to leave his house until his engagement is terminated. There are annual hirings where employer and employed make a perfectly free arrangement on the understanding that each party at the end of it shall be perfectly free to go or stay as he likes. That is exactly the case of the lease. Two free Englishmen make an arrangement under contract and sanction of the law, one to hire a farm and the other to let it, and they agree that at the end of that period each shall be free to go or stay as they like. That is no longer allowed and the farmer is to get compensation and the lease is to be broken in his favour although both had agreed to it. I have here a letter which shows the awful hardship that this will inflict on many small owners.

Mr. ACLAND: That is not the point here.

Mr. PRETYMAN: It is absolutely on the point. The lease is broken and one of the parties is made the recipient of compensation to which he had no title and in defiance of the contract into which he entered. Here again are two men, this time farmer and labourer, who enter into a similar contract for a period of one year, with the understanding that at the end of that time they should be free.
What is the difference. If the compensation is right in the one case it is right in the other, and if wrong in the one it is wrong in the other. I express no opinion as to whether it is right or wrong. If the House is professing to give some compensation and desires to carry out the principle of the Clause then let us do it, but this is not doing it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: One word as to the tribunal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this with the Secretary for Scotland.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I said that I would consider the point.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The hon. Gentleman knows what is in my mind?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I generally know.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What I suggest is that the case instead of being brought before the arbiter should be brought before the sheriff. Was that what the hon. Gentleman thought I had in my mind?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The arbiter would not be a good tribunal, and it would be much better to have the matter brought before the sheriff.

Mr. ACLAND: I am quite satisfied with my right hon. Friend's statement that he will have the question of the double tribunal considered. I have been thinking it over. I think there is a great deal to be said for not having two different tribunals, one where it is a case of misconduct and one where it is a case of being incompatible with proper cultivation. It is desirable to have as much simplicity and as little argument as possible between employer and workman. It would be a pity, for instance, if one week the employer were to appeal to the arbitrator on the ground of misconduct, and be turned down on that, and the following week to appeal to the District Committee on the ground that the man was too old. I think that the Committee is likely to be a fair tribunal, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend is going to consider whether there should not be a similar tribunal for both classes of cases.

Mr. GARDINER: Under Sub-section (c), so far as the employment of workers
by the farmers is concerned, given a farm labourer who does his work well, I can assure him security of tenure, not of compensation. Our men stay with us year after year. Our only complaint is that they leave of their own accord. We do not send them off.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands the Clause. The man may give notice himself, but under this Clause if he has notice for the house, quite apart from whether the notice is from the employer or he has given notice himself, he gets compensation all the same.

Mr. GARDINER: My point is that the question of compensation does not arise if there is security of tenure. No compensation asked by the farmer from the landlord will give such security of tenure as will be given to the farm labourer. These questions will not arise.

Mr. T. DAVIES (Cirencester): In our part of the country, in Gloucestershire, all the bargains are made for a yearly contract between the 11th October and the following 11th October. Suppose, in the middle of that time, there is a dispute between the man and his employer.

Possibly the employer comes home, as they say down there, half screwed, and quarrels with the man. They cannot make it up, and the employer says, "You have to go." Has the man to pay a fee to the arbiter before he starts as provided under the National Insurance Act, or where the arbitration goes against a man, has he to pay the arbiter's fee, and how much is it going to be? It is quite possible that the fee would swallow up all the compensation.

Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendments made to proposed Amendment: In paragraph (c), after the word "year," insert the word "or."

Leave out the words "or other definite" and insert instead thereof the words" and the occupation is terminated at the end of such."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Question put, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 20.

Division No. 372.]
AYES.
[8.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Dcyle, N. Grattan
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edge, Captain William
Hinds, John


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Edwards, G.(Norfolk, South)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)


Atkey, A. R.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Farguharson, Major A. C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vera


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Finney, Samuel
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Foreman, Henry
Irving, Dan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Johnstone, Joseph


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Blair, Reginald
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Gardiner. James
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Kenyon, Barnet


Breese, Major Charles E.
Glanville, Harold James
Lawson, John J.


Briggs, Harold
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bromfield, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindsay, William Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Lloyd, George Butler


Cairns, John
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Cape, Thomas
Green, Albert (Derby)
Lort-Williams, J.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Casey, T. W.
Gregory, Holman
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grundy, T. W.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maddocks, Henry


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Mallalieu, F. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hayday, Arthur
Mason, Robert


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Mitchell, William Lane


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Moles, Thomas


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Rendall, Athelstan
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tootill, Robert


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Vickers, Douglas


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Robertson, John
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Morrison, Hugh
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Rodger, A. K.
Waterson, A. E.


Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Rose, Frank H.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Royce, William Stapleton
Whitla, Sir William


Myers, Thomas
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wignall, James


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N' castle-on-T.)
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Simm, M. T.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Parker, James
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Winterton, Major Earl


Perkins, Walter Frank
Stevens, Marshall
Wintringham, T.


Perring, William George
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wise, Frederick


Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Sutherland, Sir William
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Swan, J. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Taylor, J. E.
Younger, Sir George


Pratt, John William
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)



Purchase, H. G.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raffan, Peter Wilson
Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)
Captain Guest and Commander


Reid, D. D
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)
Eyres-Monsell.


NOES.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Kidd, James
Starkey, Captain John R.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Stewart, Gershom


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nail, Major Joseph
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Mr. Pretyman and Mr. Inskip.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander



Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In paragraph (1) leave out the words "by reason" and insert instead thereof the words "on account."

At the end of paragraph (1) insert a new paragraph—
(2) in lieu of any compensation which in the case of a holding is to be ascertained by reference to the rent of the holding, there shall be payable a sum equal to fifty-two times the maximum weekly value of the benefit of the provision of a cottage free from rent and rates as determined for the district under the provisions of the Act of 1917; and."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words—
Provided also that where under paragraph (b) of this Section the tenant of a holding seeks to obtain a certificate from the district wages committee or a sub-committee of that committee, the occupier shall be entitled to appear before the district wages committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be, and shall, in the event of the certificate being refused, also be entitled to recover from the tenant the expenses incurred by him in appearing before the district wages committee or the subcommittee.
This Amendment is moved to secure to the labourer, when an appeal is made to the District Wages Committee and if the charge is unsuccessful, compensation for loss of time and expenses in connec-
tion therewith. I am sure the Committee will think that reasonable.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think it fair and reasonable that the workman should have an opportunity of appearing in person before the Wages Committee or Subcommittee to oppose an application, and it is not unreasonable that some provision should be made to pay his expenses if the certificate is refused. Therefore I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment in principle. It may be a matter which is dealt with better by Regulation made by the Minister. It may be desirable to some extent to alter the wording of the Amendment in another place.

Mr. ACLAND: There is one phrase which will need modification. The certificate, I think, should be the certificate of the District Wages Committee. It would not be right to trust sub-committees of the district committee with the authority of giving certificates. It should be done by the Committee itself.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reconsider that point.

Mr. ACLAND: Certainly.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I have not been in the House while the discussion on these Amendments has been carried on, but I should like to say a word or two on the Clause as a whole. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary departure for this Government to make. It shows how we can progress in socialistic legislation to an extent which five or six years ago would have seemed impossible. It also shows the difficulty and danger of bringing in legislation which allows the robbery of one class for the benefit of another. The farmers are endeavouring to rob the landlords in order to put something into their own pockets. Now that they find that once they have introduced the principle that you may rob a person in order to benefit yourself, now that they have got the landlord's property and find they may have to part with some of it to somebody else, they begin to think that this Bill is not quite so good as it was. I have received a circular from the Farmers' Union in which they say that this Clause is a bad one. They by no means fancy putting their hands into their own pockets for the benefit of somebody else; they only desire to put their hands into the pockets of the landlords for their own benefit.
I should like the House to consider how much further they are going in this direction. Not only are farmers not to be allowed to farm their land in the way they choose—in the way that will be to their own interests, as they think—not only that, but the Department is to be allowed to come in and compel them to farm the land in the way it thinks best. In addition to that a body called the District Wages Board is to decide whether or not the farmer may dismiss a labourer. How is it possible to carry on any business in this way? I do not know what the position of the country is going to be. I see in one of the papers to-day it is suggested there should be a forced loan with a great increase in the tax on corporations, or that there should be some other method devised to prevent the country going to utter ruin at once. This sort of legislation tends to render that kind of thing absolutely necessary. What is wanted is encouragement to the farmer and to everybody else to do the
best they can to advance their own interests, which are really the interests of the State. If the State is to become the director adviser, guide and controller of people carrying on business the only result will be that no business will be carried on at all. I cannot believe it possible that those Members of the Government who were formerly members of the Conservative Party should come down here and, with their previous records, propose legislation of this sort. An hon. Member near me suggests that the explanation is that the majority of them know nothing about it. Possibly that is the correct solution. We have only to look at facts. There are 707 Members of this House. Seventy are away, thank goodness! They are occupied in shooting people in other parts of the country. But that leaves about 640.

The CHAIRMAN: These remarks are a little too general. The right hon. Baronet is rather anticipating the Third Reading.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am coming to my point. I wanted to call attention to the fact that in a Division on the Amendment but a few minutes ago only 160 Members of the House took part, and that rather seems to suggest that the majority of the Members do not know what is going on. Under these circumstances it is perfectly evident that the country can no longer trust this House to do its duty, and the sooner we recognise this the better, at any rate for those of us who still remain Conservative. Our principles may be wrong, but we believe in them, and we do not believe in this sort of legislation. It is useless our voting against it, because we are voted down by hon. Members who come in from the smoking and dining-rooms. I rather gather from the circular from the Farmers' Union, to which I referred just now, that they are already learning their lesson. I hope they will not forget it, and that before very long they will see cause to regret supporting a measure of this kind.

Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) founded his advice to his Friends on a supposed circular from the Farmers' Union. There is, I believe, no one in this House who speaks directly for that union. I have received a circular. I expect it is the same one as that to which the right hon. Baronet refers, and I would like to point out
that they do not condemn this Clause. They reiterate their support of the Bill, and only refer to this Clause in a colourless way, indicating that they would like Amendments to be made to it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me—

Mr. ACLAND: remained standing—

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has put words into my month—

Mr. ACLAND: I must decline to give way.

Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman declines to give way, I can only say I have not been accustomed to that sort of thing.

Mr. ACLAND: He said he had in his pocket a communication from the Farmers' Union condemning this Clause. I do not think he can produce it.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said I had received it. I did not say I had it in my pocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did!"] We have all got it. I will find it and send it to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as I possibly can. What the Clause was I remember perfectly well; it was that they were in favour of the Bill providing that the other Clause dealing with labourers' cottages was omitted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I had a notice sent to mc officially, and they said they agreed provided it was made perfectly clear that the Clause would not interfere with good cultivation on the farm.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.—(Dwelling-house occupied by workmen employed in agriculture.)

Where under any contract of employment of a workman employed in agriculture current at or made after the commencement of this Act, the provision of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house for the occupation of the workman forms part of the remuneration of the workman, and the provisions of Sections fourteen and fifteen of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, are inapplicable by reason only of the house
or part of the house not being let to the workman, there shall be implied as part of the contract of employment and as from the commencement of the occupation or of this Act, whichever date is the earlier, the like conditions as would be implied under those provisions if the house or part of the house were so let, and those provisions shall apply accordingly as if incorporated in this Section with the substitution of "employer" for "landlord" and such other modifications as may be necessary.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think these words will make the matter perfectly clear, and therefore I will accept them.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to make a personal explanation as my veracity has been called in question. I have now got the circular, and it reads as follows.

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I not make a personal explanation, Sir?

The CHAIRMAN: Not in Committee, on another subject. We are now on another Clause. Personal explanations should come at the, end of Question Time.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. When the veracity of an hon. Member has been called in question, is it not customary to allow him, if he has an opportunity of quoting a document which he was asked to quote, and which at the moment he was not able to quote, to make that explanation?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think so, when we are in Committee and on a different subject. I have never heard it done before.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "earlier" ["whichever date is the earlier"], and insert instead thereof the word "later."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided that this Section shall not affect the obligation of any person other
than the employer to repair a cottage to which this Section applies or any remedy for enforcing any such obligation.
The effect of the Amendment is this: When we inserted this Clause at an earlier stage on Report, it was feared it would transfer from the landlord to the tenant any obligation that lay upon him to undertake these repairs. I undertook then to make it quite clear that no such transfer of obligation should take place under the Clause, and this Amendment carries out that undertaking.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman is now making a modification in this Clause, in accordance with the circular which has been sent out by the Farmers Union. This is the circular which is the cause of the Amendment:
This Committee is of opinion that, provided the suggested new Clauses relating to tied cottages and repairs to cottages are modified in the one case, so that husbandry is not prejudiced, and in the other case, so that the liabilities of owners under tenancy agreements shall not be transferred to the tenant (i.e., the employer), the Government should…. pass the Bill into law without delay.
So that the passing of the Agriculture Bill into law without delay is contingent upon the abandonment or the alteration of the Clauses I have just read.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. INSKIP: I should like to enter my protest against the form in which this Clause is drafted. I cannot imagine a more cumbrous method of legislation than that which has been adopted in this Clause. If hon. Members will look at the last sentence of the Clause, I think they will see a sentence which appears for the second time within a week and which never before has been seen in an Act of Parliament. It is not only legislation by reference to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, but it is legislation by reference, and the Act which is referred to is to be modified, not in accordance with anything which is precisely laid down in the section, but it says, "and such other modifications as may be necessary." One has no power at this stage to amend drafting, but I enter a respectful protest against such
loose and slipshod methods which are now adopted apparently by the draftsman as if that were the proper way of drawing up Acts of Parliament. I should like to refer to another looseness of expression in this Clause, where it says that "the like conditions as would be implied under those provisions," that is Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909. If hon. Members will refer to Sections 14 and 15 of that Act, they will find there is only one condition which is implied, and not more than one condition, and yet this Clause, to the great obscuring of its true object, speaks about the implication of the like "conditions," in the plural. It should be perfectly easy for any unskilled draftsman to put into intelligible language what is intended to be done by this new Clause, as now amended by the proviso moved by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope those who are responsible for this Clause will perhaps pay attention to the proper method of drafting Acts of Parliament, instead of using such slipshod methods as have been chosen in this instance.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I had no idea that my hon. and learned Friend behind me was going to call attention to the words he has mentioned. I should like in a very few words to endorse what he has said. I am perfectly certain that neither of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench can have any sort of responsibility for the drafting of this Clause. I cannot imagine anything more slipshod and more slovenly than the words "such other modification as may be necessary." I should like to hear the opinion of one of His Majesty's Judges the first time my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has occasion to appear before him under this Act and to hear the comments that a judge would make when he is called upon to construe his powers under these words, "such other modifications as may be necessary." I can imagine a judge saying that that gives him complete discretion to do whatever he likes.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think my hon. and learned Friend is a little bit hard upon the draftsmen. He must remember the reason why all these Clauses are badly badly drafted is that they have more than is possible for any human being to do. It is the result of the way in which it is endeavoured to force legislation through this House and the absolute
necessity of drafting new Clauses in a hurry. When Clauses are drafted in a hurry bad legislation must ensue. I do not know how many Bills they have drafted either on this side or some other side of the House. Clauses were put in which were never intended when the Bill was introduced. But if it is likely to be popular with a certain class of people and a certain desire to have a Clause put into the Bill, the result is that we have a Clause drafted in the way in which this Clause is drafted. As my hon. and learned Friend says, it is governed by the last words "such other modifications as may be necessary," that is to say, it leaves it to the judge practically to decide what is necessary in the Clause, what modifications may be put in, or what modifications may be left out. We shall have gentlemen perhaps saying that this is judge-made law. We shall have a new Act to interpret what is the meaning of this Clause if it happens to be against a certain section of the community, and we shall have another Act to over-ride what is called judge-made law. Let me point out as an illustration of what I am saying. You have only to turn over the page and you will see a Clause that occupies five pages. I defy anybody either to understand or to draft a Clause which occupies five pages of the Paper. The same rule applies. These draftsmen have to do in a few moments what ought probably to take them many weeks. I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend, who I am sure has the interests of the law at heart, to exercise his great ability to persuade the Government to moderate a little of their anxiety for legislation. They would probably find that the cases in the Courts would diminish and the legislation which is affected would be simple and could be understood by the people.

Sir J. HOPE: It seems to me we are introducing some quite extraneous matter into the Agriculture Bill. With regard to housing, I, personally, have always protested against the Housing Acts that have been passed both this year and last year as in no way dealing with agricultural housing. Now suddenly, at the last moment, in a Bill which does not profess to deal with housing, an eye-washing Clause has been put in which it is hoped will help agricultural housing. I am not prepared to oppose this Clause
though I do not believe it will help housing in the smallest particular. I think it will more confuse the issue and make it more difficult. Agricultural housing in Scotland, as we all know, is in a very bad state. I myself moved an Amendment in the last Housing Act, which was refused, suggesting that the subsidy which was then granted under the last Housing Act of 1919 should be extended to assist the reconstruction and enlargement of houses. That was a proposal which would materially have assisted agricultural housing in Scotland. That was not accepted, and nothing has been done. Anyone who knows Scotland knows that housing is not progressing favourably or elsewhere, but it is not progressing at all with regard to agricultural housing. Will this proposal help it? I do not believe it will for one moment, and I think it will confuse the issue. I should very much like to know how it will affect the question of houses which are let on farm leases. In Scotland, as is well known, these houses are let under a lease, the tenant accepting them in a good state of repair and being responsible for keeping them in a good state of repair. If, on the other hand, structural alterations have to be done to these cottages the owner is chargeable. That is the present law under the lease. It has gone on for some years, and nothing very much has been done. One of the drawbacks is that the tenant has accepted the houses in a good state of repair, and during the currency of the lease the tenant farmer has not raised the question because he was afraid he may have to pay for the repairs. We have still got this question of repair to clear up. I do not believe under this proposed law we shall know. Under the Housing Act for Scotland, Section 25, there is a proviso that if an owner of any house suitable for occupation fails to keep that house fit for human habitation, then he has to put it into a state of repair; but there is to that Clause a proviso that if the house is not capable, without reconstruction, of being put in a state fit for human habitation, then the owner has the alternative of putting it into a state of repair, or may close it down, because it is supposed to be unreasonable to pay more for reconstructing the house than the house is economically worth. I want to know whether this proviso in the Housing Act will apply. I strongly sup-
port any legislation which will deal with agricultural housing and improve it, especially in Scotland, but I should like to know exactly how this Clause is really going to promote housing. If the Government wants to do anything they should assist and encourage private enterprise, and assist not only new construction but also enlargement.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how this question comes under this Clause.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909 are incorporated in the Bill. I have Sections 14 and 15 of the Act. I have read them rather hurriedly, but I do not see in them any proviso which says that if the landlord or the owner is not putting the house in repair then he shall not be obliged to do so.

Sir J. HOPE: May I answer that?

The CHAIRMAN: It does not seem to me to be relevant. I have been puzzling my brains to know how it comes in under this Clause. I really cannot discover it at all.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause incorporates Sections 14 and 15 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909. If there were anything in either of those Clauses which bore out the contention of my hon. Friend I think it would be relevant, but there is nothing which does that. I presume I am right in supposing—I have read this as carefully as I can

The CHAIRMAN: One hon. Member has referred to the Act of 1909, and another hon. Member to the Act of 1919. They had better both adjourn and settle matters.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think—

The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not relevant.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the Clause which would be relevant. I have no very great objection to this Clause. I think it is right for a house to be put in a fit condition for human habitation. What my hon. Friend says is to a certain extent true, namely, that there are a large number of cottages—I am very sorry for it—in rural England which are certainly not up to modern requirements. What he result is going to be I am not quite certain, because the words "fit for human habitation" are rather vague. I am not
quite sure what interpretation may be put on them by the local authorities who, under this Clause, are called on to interpret them. Provided they interpret them in the sense that the walls must be thick and waterproof, that the roof must be in order, and the floor sound, I have no objection. If they interpret them to mean that there must be a number of bedrooms, sitting-rooms and a parlour, and all that sort of thing, then, though personally nothing would please me better than to see these arrangements carried out, I do not see where the money to do it is coming from. That is the great difficulty from which we are suffering in all this sort of legislation. It is quite easy to sit here and say that we ought to do this or that, but it is not so easy, especially after a great war, to find the money. The proper course for the Government—I am not for a moment suggesting that they should abandon the Clause—would have been to have put in some words defining what, in their opinion, is the meaning of "fit for human habitation." So far as I know, there is no definition in the Act of 1909. If there is I have nothing further to say but this point is a very serious one, and worthy of consideration. I should be very much obliged if my right hon. Friend would tell me whether there is any definition in that Act, or if there is any definition which is accepted as common law by the Courts of Law.

Sir E. POLLOCK: My right hon. Friend really raises points which I think he can answer himself. I sometimes believe that, being so good a student of Acts of Parliament and of law, he is really thinking aloud on doubts which are passing through his mind rather than addressing me, and wishing for an answer.

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Sir E. POLLOCK: If he will look at Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1909 he will see the words are that the premises should be fit for human habitation. These words were passed in an Act of Parliament now 11 years old. So far as I know they have given rise to no difficulty, and—I may be wrong—to no reported case upon them. It is a question of fact in each case whether or not a dwelling is fit for habitation. In some situations and in some places a dwelling may be quite fit for habitation; in another place it may suffer from some disadvantage which may
have to be put right. In all cases it is a question of fact, and the right hon. Baronet will not find a definition in law, because you cannot define what is a question of fact. Although he may search for a long time through these Acts of Parliament, I do not think he will find a definition. I hope that that may assist his researches still further.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for disturbance in case of allotment gardens.)

(1) The provisions of this Act as to compensation for disturbance in the case of a holding shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden, but subject to the provisions of this Section.

(2) Where the tenancy of an occupier of an allotment garden is terminated by reason of a notice to quit which is less than one year's notice, the compensation shall be either such an amount as is payable under the provisions applied by this Section or such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of the expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given, whichever amount is greater.

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where possession of the land is reasonably required for naval, military, or Air Force purposes, or for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of those purposes.

(3) Compensation under this Section shall not be payable in the case of an allotment garden provided by a local authority for the purposes of The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, where the occupier is resident more than one mile out of the district of the local authority.

(4) Any question as to whether compensation is payable under this Section, or as to the amount payable, shall be determined under and in accordance with the provisions of The Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, in the same manner as the amount of compensation for crops or other matters is determined under that Act, and the compensation under this Section shall be in addition to any compensation payable under that Act.

(5) So much of the last-mentioned Act as provides that that Act shall not extend to the Metropolis is hereby repealed as respects
any tenancy which terminates after the commencement of this Act.

(6) In the application of this Section to Scotland the expression "allotment garden" means an allotment under The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended or applied by any subsequent enactment, and a reference to The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or to The Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall be construed as a reference to the said Act of 1892 as so amended or applied.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Allotments are dealt with in this Bill in two ways. First of all, there will be compensation under Clause 7, where plot-holders are disturbed from their allotments. We do not propose to alter that in any way. The first paragraph of the Clause I am now moving makes that quite clear. It says:
The provisions of this Act as to compensation for disturbance in the case of a holding shall apply with the necessary modifications in the case of an allotment garden but subject to the provisions of this Section.
That means that where a plot-holder is disturbed he will get compensation for disturbance, which is one year's rent plus the cost of removal. In the case of an allotment the cost of removal will be very small, and one year's rent in most instances will probably be in the neighbourhood of 10s. It is also true if the disturbance is capricious that it may be as much as four years' rent. Allotments are also dealt with in the Bill in Clause 22, which lays down the general principle that in the case of all holdings, including allotments, twelve months' notice shall be necessary. That particular Clause as it stands is singularly ill-appropriate to allotments. In one respect it goes too far In the case of Defence of the Realm Act allotments, where land was taken during the War for allotments for temporary purposes—land which was required for building, and would have been used for such but for the War—twelve months' notice would be necessary. That would stop a great deal of housing, mining, and industrial work generally, and would mean that an enormous sum of compensation would have to be paid
It would be very hard also on those who during the War were willing to lend land temporarily for allotments which otherwise would have been used for building. In land wanted for building or
other similar purposes, there ought to be means whereby the resumption can be obtained more quickly. In that respect the 12 months' notice given goes much too far. In another respect Clause 22 (notices to quit) is quite ineffective from the point of view of the allotment holders. What would be the result of that? As regards future contracts care would be taken to put in these special reasons for which the tenancies could be resumed, and in that case 12 months would not be applicable in the case of allotments. Therefore the Government came to the conclusion that it would be far better to deal with the case of allotments in a special Clause, which special Clause I may say I have carefully considered. It has been placed before the Members of this House who are interested in allotments, and I think it generally meets the situation, and is a great improvement on the present position from the point of view of the allotment holders.
What we propose in the new Clause I can sum up in a very few words. We divide the case of allotment holders into three. First of all, where allotments are not properly cultivated. In that case there will be no compensation at all for disturbance. The new Clause, I may say, goes on the principle of compensation for disturbance, giving special compensation for disturbance for less than 12 months' notice. In the second place, if the notice is reasonably given for any purpose which is recognised as a good purpose, for example, naval, military, or air force purposes, or for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads necessary in connection with any of these purposes, there will be compensation under the Bill, namely, one year's rent and cost of removal. That will be given whether the notice is 12 months or less, equally that compensation will be payable.
There is this further. Notice may be given to terminate the tenancy on which there are allotments for purposes for what I may call more or less arbitrary purposes, that is to say, not for good reasons. For example, a man may wish to add the allotment to his own private garden, or he may wish to make a tennis court, or to use the ground for some other sporting purpose. In these cases, if the notice is less than 12 months, there will be special compensation which will amount to the value of the beneficial occupation which the allotment holder would have
had in it if the full 12 months' notice had been given. That is a new provision, and, I think, a very valuable one. It will have the effect of diverting landowners from turning down allotments under 12 months unless there is some specially good reason for so doing, because the compensation in that case will amount to a very considerable sum. We may reckon that the value of the beneficial occupation for a year will be about £7. I am only taking an average figure. It may be more or less. You may have 16 allotments to the acre. That would, therefore, mean that if notice of less than 12 months is given for the purposes other than those purposes provided in the Bill, namely, naval, military, and air force purposes, or industrial purposes, compensation may amount to as much as £112 an acre. That would be a very great deterrent to the landlord giving notice except for the very good reasons which are defined, and it would give a security of tenure to the allotment holder that he certainly does not enjoy at the present time. The proposals we have made, I think, are fair. I think they meet the point that in many cases we must get the land back quickly for important purposes; at any rate, it does make it an expensive process to get rid of allotments for inadequate reason, and it will have the effect of giving the allotment holder a much better security.

Mr. ACLAND: I want, first of all, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for the pains he is taking to deal with this subject. He has met Members of the House interested in allotments, and although he cannot give them all they want—for allotment holders want a great deal—

Mr. LAWSON: And they are quite worth it!

Mr. ACLAND: I agree. Yet, on the whole, the provisions of the Bill in regard to allotment holders do put them more or less on parallel lines with the farmers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has met us in a reasonable way. But it cannot be too often or too strongly observed, I think, that nothing in the way of compensation will really satisfy the allotment holder. What he is out for is security of tenure, and he feels the position even more than the farmers do. My right hon. Friend has gone a reason-
able way in devising what can be done on the basis of compensation, but it is security of tenure that is required, for under no circumstances will the allotment holder lose the little piece of land he has, and which is the only thing which will make the allotment holder happy. But the allotment holder has got to admit, and he will not admit it—though it is, unfortunately, true—that a great deal of the land that he is most anxious for absolute security in connection with is land taken for the purpose of allotments during the War, under the most distinct and explicit understanding that it would be taken back and was not going to be used permanently for allotments. It is also true that many private owners gave land which was waiting to become building land, and within a reasonable area for building, and gave it up temporarily for allotments, and to help the nation in its food emergency.
It would be, I am afraid, impossible, however great the sympathy we have with the allotment holder, to say that that land, if taken by the Government under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and also given by the private owner for temporary use as allotments, should, because of the various reasons advanced, become permanently allotment ground We have got to look at this Clause as being simply what it is, a Clause dealing, not with the question of security, but of compensation. From that point of view, things are on the whole fair. It is, first of all, I think, right—I think it was I who raised the particular point—that the tenant of allotment land should have the same rights as the tenant of an agricultural holding, if he is given a year's notice. That may be quite considerable in certain cases. I know a good deal of allotment ground, for which the allotment holder pays something like £8 an acre, and that will give for an ordinary tenure compensation on the basis of one year's rent, or 10s., and it may go up to £2 if the notice is a capricious one. That is not a very great deal, but in some respects it is something quite considerable, and it is only right if the allotment holder has to go that he should get the same basis of compensation, that is the year's rent and the cost of removal, just the same as the larger man. It is also reasonable to have special provisions
for the cases where the tenure of thy allotment holder is terminated in less than a year. I do not think you can devise anything more likely to be just than to give the allotment holders the benefit of an option either to take what would have been the benefit he had secured if he had continued to cultivate his allotment or to take the cost of removal and from one to four years' rent, whichever of those two options give him the most. That is a perfectly genuine attempt to meet the case of disturbance at less than a year's notice.
10.0 P.M.
The most difficult point is the special proviso in the new Clause which restricts the choice of methods of compensation. In the great bulk of cases where the allotment is needed for naval and military or air force purposes, or for building, mining or other industrial purposes, or for roads, that is not entirely inclusive. It will be under that provsio that a great deal of the allotment land will be resumed, and has been resumed. It seemed to me at first that the man who had notice to quit of less than a year when his land was wanted for these purposes would get no compensation, but I think that is wrong. He gets the expenses of removal and one year's rent, which is the ordinary compensation the farmer gets if he has to go after one year's notice. That at any rate is something, and the only point to be made is that the allotment holder under that proviso gets just the same compensation if his notice to quit is a year or a period of less than a year, and it may be a week. You would expect if the notice was shorter that the compensation might be greater, but that is not provided for. All the defence the allotment holder has is that contained under the word "reasonable." He will have the right to call in an arbitrator, and if he decides that the notice is given unreasonably, and that the land is not being reasonably required, he will decide that the proviso shall not operate, and in that case the allotment holder will have this option, and will be entitled to the larger compensation estimated on the basis of the loss he has sustained by not having a year's occupation. In the case of a very short notice the arbitrator may say it is not reasonably given and the allotment holder will then have the greater compensation. That is the only safeguard. I will conclude by
saying that it has been in the House throughout our discussions rather fashionable to upset agreements come to upstairs, but I do not think that we who are interested in allotment holders want to do that in this case. My right hon. Friend represents the Allotments Committee which consists of hon. Members who work in connection with the National Union of Allotment Holders, and I represent the Agricultural Organisation Society, and we all want to help this Clause through and not overthrow it.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am authorised to say on behalf of the National Union of Allotment Holders, that they accept this Clause. My right hon. Friend knows, however, that it is with a certain amount of regret in the minds of the members of the Union, and I believe also in the minds of a large number of Members of Parliament, that we are to-night discussing the question of compensation to these allotment holders who have had to give up their holdings. The position of the allotment movement in this country at the present time is a very serious one. All over the country thousands of notices to quit have been given to allotment holders in various districts, and as my right hon. Friend knows full well, no amounts of £7 to £14 or even £100 can in any way be commensurate with the ideas of the movement, or the ambition of the allotment holders themselves. What they desire is to continue the national work they are doing, and while they accept this Clause they all know that my right hon. Friend simply regards this as a temporary Measure, and as by no means dealing with the future of allotments generally in this country.
At the end of this year some thousands of allotment holders in London have got to give up their holding. I myself believe that is a matter of great regret, and I believe it is to the national disadvantage that that should be done. I am afraid this Clause does not deal with that position. We have had recently discussed in this House the question of the allotments on the Wanstead Flats. In this case there is an immense amount of acreage of land available for this important movement, and yet, despite the representations of the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Agriculture, these allotment holders have got to give up their holdings at the bidding of an authority which appar-
ently is not subject to the jurisdiction of this House. I am making these observations not by way of criticisms of this proposal but in an endeavour to indicate to the House that this Clause, whilst going a considerable way in dealing with the difficulties, by no means solves the present problem which is before the allotment holders of the country. I only wish to say in conclusion that the allotment holders believe they have in the right hon. Gentleman a true Friend, and I hope he will be able to indicate at the close of this discussion that he is prepared to meet the representatives of the allotment holders of this country with a view to coming to some more satisfactory solution of the problem than is foreshadowed in this Clause, and with a view to making the allotment movement a permanent one, and one that is not subject to the capricious wishes of certain local authorities up and down the country.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Listening to the two right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side I have been forced to the conclusion that neither of them realises the real value of the allotment movement from the social and economic aspect. They devoted their remarks to the question of compensation, a trumpery two penny-halfpenny matter which concerns allotment holders very little indeed. The Minister in charge of this Bill met a deputation from the National Union of Allotment Holders and offered them this Clause as the best he could do in this Bill. For that we thanked him, and we accepted it as the best he could do in this Bill, but in accepting it as such it was with an understanding, given by the Minister at the time, that after this measure was through the House he would again meet the deputation, and go more thoroughly into the whole question of allotments, with a view to possible legislation next Session, if found necessary. Under these circumstances it would be wrong of me to oppose this Clause in any way, but I do want to point out that it is not even half a loaf, not even a crust, and it goes a very little way indeed towards satisfying the hunger of the thousands of allotment holders who are being dispossessed, and of the thousands of other people who are hungering for allotments and cannot get them. This is a very important and valuable movement from a social and economic point of view, and it will have to be inquired into very thoroughly, and the Minister in charge
of the Bill, and others who pretend to be, and I believe are interested in this movement, must approach this matter from a different point of view. I am grateful for this Clause in so far as it goes, which is a very little way indeed, and I hope that when the Minister again meets the deputation we shall go very thoroughly into the whole matter, and get some legislation next year to do some good.

Mr. SWAN: Adequate consideration has not been given to allotment holders, having regard to the service they have rendered to the community. Every consideration ought to be given to allotment holders before they are given notice ac all. If we are to encourage working men to take allotments, then something substantially more than the 12 months ought to be the consideration. In the urban district council area in which I live, in fixing the terms for allotments due to past experience, the least we would take is 14 years, because we are conscious that if a man is to get a return for his labour, and all the digging up of the soil, taking off turf, he must have a long period in which to recoup himself, and 12 months is not anything like sufficient. Good service was rendered to the country at a time when there was a demand for food. Allotments were the means really of saving families from starvation, and to take away these allotments will mean reducing substantially the standard of living of a number of families, and before the allotments are taken away greater consideration ought to be given to the possibility of getting land elsewhere for building or for factory purposes. What is meant by the compensation that is offered? Assuming a man built himself a hut for his tools, or put a rose-bed upon his garden, will he get compensation for all this work and expense? Thousands of men in the county of Durham have gone to that expense, and now, after they have had their allotments for three years, this Bill come along and says that if a farmer or a public authority or someone else wants the land they will get 12 months' notice to quit. It is very unfair both to the individual and to the community that a man's labour should be thrown to the winds in this way. There is no analogy between the case of the farmer and of the allotment holder. In the case of the latter
you have had intensive cultivation. You cannot measure the labour that a man has put into his allotment; maybe he has put in the whole of his week ends, and the efforts of the whole of the family may have been put into the land in order to get the best out of it for himself and the nation. It is ludicrous in the extreme to compare the farmer with the allotment holder. Will compensation for removal mean compensation for his bushes, his tool-house and his greenhouse?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I am very sorry to see that this Clause neglects to give security of tenure to the allotment holder. That is the only thing which is of value to the allotment holder, and the only thing he is really working for. It is said the allotment holder wants a good deal. As far as I know, and I represent a good many, they do not want a great deal, they are extremely reason able people. If the land is needed for housing purposes or for any other purpose, and there is no other land avail able in the district, they are quite willing that their land should be given up, but they are not willing to give it up when it is not really needed. I know of a case in my own constituency where 600 allotment holders have been turned off land for the sole purpose of building working-class houses, although the plans for the houses have not yet been passed, and they will not be put on that land for another year. It is in such cases as these that the allotment holder wants to be protected. He only asks for one year's security of tenure, and that the notice shall take effect only between October and February. That gives him one clear year. I maintain that in a locality where they are letting land for allotments, they know what building schemes they are going in for, and have made up their minds when those schemes are to be put in operation; and they ought not to offer the land to the allotment holder unless they can give him security. A question has been asked as to the meaning of the compensation that is to be given. Does it mean that if the allotment holder has spent money on manure, seed, and fencing, and has built his little hut on his allotment, he will be compensated for all that? If he is not going to be compensated for that expenditure, but is only going to be paid one year's rent and his expenses of removal, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps I may shorten the discussion if I explain that now. The compensation proposed in this Clause is in addition to the compensation to which allotment holders are already entitled under the Agricultural Holdings Act. For all crops on the land, for unexhausted manure, and so on, they already receive compensation, and that is not taken away by this Clause. The compensation for disturbance which we give in this Clause is in addition to that. As regards the question of the removal of a tool-house, that, undoubtedly, would be one of the costs of removal, for which there would be compensation under this Clause.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information, which, I am sure, will be received with approval by all allotment holders. I should like to ask, however, even at this late hour, whether it is not possible to insert in this Clause another proviso giving to the allotment holders one year's security of tenure. If this could be done I am sure it would be to the advantage of the whole country. We have been told that this country must produce the greatest possible quantity of food. The allotment holders are producing a vast quantity of food, and, unless some security of tenure is given to them, we shall see thousands of them thrown off their allotments before the end of this year. I am quite sure that it will be most regrettable if that happens.

Mr. E. KELLY: It seems to me that doubts might arise as to whether the Clauses under discussion apply to the Irish allotment holder. My reason for making this suggestion is that apparently these provisions come under Part II of the Bill, and Part II deals principally with compensation for disturbance. By these new Clauses, for the first time, the principle of compensation for disturbance is applied to allotment holders. Since 1870 we have had the principle of compensation for disturbance in the case of farms, and the law with regard to it is well established. We have also machinery for enforcing awards in respect of disturbance, and we have well-settled machinery for calculating the basis upon which that compensation is to be awarded. Allotments are of recent growth in Ireland, as they are in this country—they are more recent there, if
anything—and it seems to me that if Parliament is going to give statutory effect to provisions for the compensation of allotment holders for disturbance in this country, the Irish allotment holder has even a stronger claim, seeing that the Irish landowner and the Irish farmer were able, if necessary, to claim compensation long before such a claim received statutory recognition here. Therefore the Irish allotment holders would value an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they are within the scope of these Clauses. I agree that it might be necessary to make some consequential Amendments in the definition Clause, applying the measure to Ireland, in view of the fact that Part II of the Bill does not apply to Ireland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me an answer at once so as to shorten the discussion.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As the Clause is drafted now it will not apply to Ireland.

Mr. KELLY: This is rather a serious matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman treats the point I raised in a hostile manner. It occurred to me that it is simply a draughtsman's oversight and that as the provision for awarding and calculating compensation is under Part II of the Bill, which applies solely to England, that it was an oversight that similar provision was not made in order to apply these provisions to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me an assurance that he will modify Clause 27 in the necessary particulars I am sure it will not be unreasonable.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot do it at this stage. That is impossible. But if there is a desire that this allotment Clause should apply to Ireland—I have no means of ascertaining that at present—I will take care that Clause 27 shall be modified in another place.

Mr. KELLY: I put it to the right hon. Gentleman on the ground of ordinary justice, not on the ground of the demand whether it should or should not. Is it just that an English allotment holder should have compensation for disturbance? If the Committee say it is, why should they say it is not just that Irish allotment holders should have similar compensation? I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not perfectly simple even at this moment to draft a Clause to the effect that the Department of Agri-
culture may make such orders as they think fit to enable these New Clauses to be applied to Ireland with the necessary Amendments? It could be done in two lines. If necessary I will undertake to hand in an Amendment to that effect before the discussion closes, but I think it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to see that it is done. What is the objection?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no objection. I have tried very hard to meet the hon. Member, but he does not seem to respond to my advances at all. Far from it. I have told him it cannot be done at this stage. It has to be done on Clause 27, which has not been recommitted, and therefore we are powerless to do it at this stage. But if the matter is generally desired, I will take care that it is done in another place. What more can I say?

Mr. KELLY: I want the right hon. Gentleman to say it will be done.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should be very sorry to say what another place will do to this Bill.

Mr. KELLY: I do not want a provisional guarantee. If the right hon. Gentleman says he will have an Amendment made in another place that is the most I could ask for, and I think it is the least the right hon. Gentleman ought to offer.

Mr. E. WOOD: I will not follow the hon. Member into the abstract requirements of justice. I am content to leave that point, as the right hon. Gentleman has left it, in his hands. I do not want either to follow those hon. Members opposite who have spoken on the general value of allotments, because that is a subject on which they are preaching to the converted and on which there is a very substantial body of agreement. I would enter a caveat against some statements made by hon. Members, who said, I have no doubt with great truth, that the real claim of the allotment holders was for complete security of tenure. I think it ought to be remembered that there are two sides to that question, and, although security of tenure might be desirable, it might also result in difficulties as to the provision of allotments at all. Those who had land
suitable for allotments would be likely to think twice before granting land for allotments if in so doing they were precluding themselves and the community from early resumption for purposes for which it was even more urgently required. We all know it is extremely difficult to reconcile these conflicting claims. Our sympathy for and our sense of the value of allotments may be as high as you like, but we must ultimately recognise economic factors, and in attempting to divert land we may be likely to land ourselves in an economic quagmire I rose to refer to another point which, I think, should be borne in mind for possible consideration in another place, it was raised on Clause 7, and left, I think, in a rather indefinite position. That point is, what is to happen in the case of a landlord who let land to tenant A, who in turn has sub-let, without the landlord's knowledge, for allotments to various sub-tenants. If the landlord gives notice to tenant A, he should not be involved by virtue of that notice in any necessity to give compensation to the allotment holders, who are in reality subtenants of A, and have never been accepted by the landlord. It is a point of some substance, and I raise it so that it should not be overlooked. Some Amendment of the Clause may be required to safeguard the interests of the principal owner.

Mr. R. McLAREN: In connection with the proposal to allow compensation in respect of having to give up allotments, I may put the case of my own town where the Corporation laid out the public park for allotments, and they have been kept going ever since. Recently I understand that notice has been given that the land is to be restored to its original purpose as a public park. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether in a case of that kind the Corporation will be entitled to pay these allotment holders who received the ground on the understanding that it was solely for the purposes of the War? Near where I live the owner of a property kindly let out his grass land for the purpose of giving allotments to the people, on the understanding that so long as the War lasted these men would have the ground for cultivation as allotments. Some of the holders have refused to give up their allotments, though asked to do so. Is that man to be asked to give compensation? One of the best
things that ever happened in this country was the giving of allotments during the War. People are now working shorter hours, and many of them are anxious to give all the time they can to allotments, and it is a good thing to give them the opportunity of doing so. In Scotland many houses have very large gardens. When a man leaves a house he leaves the garden. Is compensation to be given in future for gardens as well as for allotments? If so, up will go the rent. While encouraging allotments care must therefore be taken not to make things harder for others. In districts where there are mines allotments have often to be used while the crops are on it for boring to see whether minerals are there. In such cases there should not only be the ordinary compensation, but also compensation for the manure and other things that the holder put into the ground.

Sir J. D. REES: The provisos in this Bill as regards compensation are exceedingly stiff and with reference to this proposal to extend compensation to allotments, I would ask if allotments in public parks and gardens are affected? This is not quite like the case to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. As I understand, there are allotments in Kensington Gardens, for instance, and the tenants there are tenants of the Commissioners of Works, who represents the Crown—that is to say, the public. If compensation is payable the public would be paying compensation, in addition to having been deprived of the amenities of the gardens for the years of the War and two years after the War. If this provision applies to Richmond Park and Kensington Gardens, and just outside to a beautiful piece of formerly almost rural ground, it is time to oppose the provision. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that is not so. The Committee is agreed as to the utility of allotments, but their beauty is not equal to their utility, and we must remember that we are dealing with the immemorial rights of the public, which have been mortgaged with very slight advantage to a very few members of the public to the disadvantage of a very large number of members of the public, who are deprived of the health-giving properties of these areas How detestably undemocratic it is for a few to get all these things at the expense of the community,
and that subsequently compensation should be leviable on the community on behalf of those few! Sub-section (2) proposes that the provision will not apply where there is a notice to quit which is for not less than one year. I do not know whether these particular allotment holders have always had a running notice to quit, and have sat as yearly tenants. Even in that case I believe that in agriculture, if you have a tenant, it is almost impossible to get rid of him in less than two years. Therefore, it may be that, in spite of this provision, these allotment holders may be more firmly planted than the Committee believes. Does Sub-section (4), which provides for additional compensation to that payable under this Act, apply to the allotment holders in Richmond Park and Kensington Gardens? Sub-section (5) increases my perplexity. I confess that I do not understand it. The proviso to Sub-section (2) states that the paragraph shall not apply where possession of the land is reasonably required for Naval, Military, or Air Force purposes, or for building, mining, or other such purposes, or for roads in connection with any of these purposes. I agree in approving that, but why does not that apply as regards the parks which are the lungs of London, and which have been temporarily handed over for this use? It is laid down that compensation shall not be payable on the grounds of health convenience and public requirements, and surely the parks with their health-giving properties should also come within the exception. It is somewhat difficult to speak on this particular matter, as nobody seems to realise how irregular is the position of a handful of men camped in a park which has belonged to the public for centuries, and how necessary it is that they, for democratic reasons, should be ejected without compensation as soon as possible. I ask the Solicitor-General whether or not these particular allotment holders come under this Clause.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We have had a very long discussion on this Clause, and practically every Member who has spoken has approved it. A certain number have said that they wished it had gone further, but they agreed that, as far as this Bill was concerned, it is the utmost we could do, and that the general question of allotments could not be raised now. I have already said in reply to a deputation
that if they accepted this Clause I would later on consider what further Amendments could be made to the general law regarding allotments. But that matter cannot be raised in this particular Bill, and I hope therefore that the House will shortly come to a decision on this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wood) asked what would happen in cases where tenants had sub-let their allotments. Would the landowner be held responsible? I think the landowner would not be responsible, but difficulties might arise, and I should like to consider what would happen under these circumstances. Then I was asked by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) whether compensation would be payable in the case of land temporarily taken in the public parks for allotments. Yes, it would be, and I think quite rightly so. I do not think that an allotment holder who is dispossessed of his holding in a park is less entitled to compensation than any other allotment holder. He was asked to take an allotment and grow food during the War, and, as a general rule, it was very well done It is perfectly true that we are bound, since the parks are dedicated to the general public and are required for recreation and fresh air, to resume the land there and not allow the allotments to continue for ever, but if the allotment holders are dispossessed they are certainly entitled to compensation, and unless 12 months' notice is given they would be entitled to compensation on the higher scale. My hon. Friend asks why such a purpose as public recreation should not be a purpose like naval, military, or air force purposes, or building, for which the lower scale is paid. The answer is this: When land is wanted for naval, military or air force purposes, or for building, it is presumably wanted at once, and therefore, in order that the work may be got on with, the lower scale of compensation is paid, but really it cannot make very much difference, if land in the parks has been used for allotments, whether that land is resumed for the general public this year or next year, provided it is done within a reasonable period. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on the Clause.

Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask one or two questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide"] I do not know why
hon. Members are in such a very great hurry. The Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended, we are discussing an extremely important Clause£I do not think we began to discuss it till five minutes past ten£and therefore it is perfectly in order and necessary that those of us who require some explanation of certain words in this Clause, which may lead to a very considerable amount of litigation, may be allowed to ask the Solicitor-General, who is now in charge, what the result of these words will be. We are in a little difficulty, because the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the allotment holders on this side has made a certain statement, and an hon. Member opposite, who also says he speaks for the allotment holders, has made another statement. So far as that goes we are not assisted in any way. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Inskip) pointed out a short time ago that the previous Clause was unintelligible. What is going to happen under Sub-section (2) of this Clause, which reads:
Where the tenancy of an occupier of an allotment garden is terminated by reason of a notice to quit which is less than one year's notice, the compensation shall be either such an amount as is payable under the provisions applied by this Section or such an amount as represents the benefits which would have accrued to the occupier from the occupation of the allotment garden on the terms of the expired tenancy during the period between the date of the expiration of the tenancy and the end of one year from the date on which the notice to quit was given, whichever amount is greater.
I presume that means that if an allotment holder is told to go on the 1st March of any given year, and, if he had had a year's notice, he would not have gone until the 1st October of that year, then he is to be recompensed for the loss which would have occurred between the 1st March and the 1st October, presuming that he had been in occupation of that allotment during that period. What he would have gained if he had been in occupation of that allotment during that period would depend upon two things: first of all, upon his own personal exertions, and, secondly, upon the weather. Who is going to decide whether or not, between the 1st March and the 1st October, there are going to be hailstones or frosts or something which would destroy the produce which he would have put into the garden if he had been in occupation, which he was not? That is one of the conundrums which will have to
be put to whomsoever has got to decide upon this particular Clause; and the second one is, who is to decide what the exertions of any particular person would have been? One knows perfectly well there are a certain number of people who are extremely capable in gardening, whether it is floral gardening or growing vegetables, and there are other people who are certainly not so capable, and how are you going to decide whether this particular person who is not in occupation, but might have been in occupation, is a capable market-gardener who would have taken advantage of fine weather, or would have taken care to guard against the ravages of frost in cultivating his market-gardeen? What is the good of putting in a provision in this Clause which nobody can possibly interpret? Coming to the proviso in Sub-section (2), what are "other industrial purposes"? It is extremely difficult to know. There again, we are left with vague words, which it is impossible to interpret. I do not know why Sub-section (5) should be put in. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us, but my own belief is that the Metropolis is so dealt with because a good many of the allotments in the Metropolis were in the public parks. They were granted under the stress of war, and it was never intended that they should be used for the pecuniary benefit of any particular class. I really do think we ought to have had some explanation of that. I noticed the extraordinary acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman when an hon. Member opposite, who has been conspicuous by his absence from this House, got up and said he wanted the Clause extended to Ireland. There were one or two Ulster Members in the House, and they did not express any desire to have the Clause extended to Ireland, and I do not know whether they desire it or not. But if there were one thing we thought we were going to gain by the passing of a Home Rule Bill, it was that Irish legislation would be excluded from this House, and I cannot quite see how Irish legislation, whether it is good or bad, can be introduced into a Bill in this House.

Colonel GRETTON: I have every desire that those who cultivated allotments should continue to be encouraged in every possible way, but there have been two classes of allotments discussed in this Debate. In the case of those established in
public parks for war purposes only, it was never intended or expected that they should continue after the War. They might very well be given up after 31st October in any year. Before the Government decides that they are going to impose a charge on public funds they should examine and consider their Financial Resolution, to see whether under its terms they have the power to impose such a charge. It is quite hopeless to ask the Government to pay any attention at the present moment to a charge on the public rates, but this is really a special case. Not only does this Government intend to give the allotment holders compensation which they never claimed, but they are going to force the authority to make a charge to restore the ground to the condition in which it was in before it was turned into allotments. Thus, there will be a double charge imposed. Incidentally allotments in the public parks are not entitled to compensation. These are matters for further consideration, and if it is too late now I hope the Government will give it attention in another place.

Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I want to appeal on behalf of the people in a number of moderate-sized boroughs of the county who, at the beginning of the War, gave up their parks for allotments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] It is all right for London Members to shout "Divide," but there are other boroughs represented in this House besides the London boroughs. Why has the Minister in charge of the Bill specially singled out the London boroughs in order to help the London rates, when there are a very large number of hon. Members who are very much concerned at the rising rates in the smaller boroughs in the country? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in another place, he will see that the same law shall be made to apply to the smaller boroughs all over the country as that which will apply in London, so that these boroughs, which gave up their parks in this great national service of allotments, Should—

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That does apply.

Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: If it does apply I am satisfied. I understood it did not. I only want to make 11.0 P.M. certain that the smaller boroughs or cities are not penalised as against the London boroughs.

Sir H. COWAN: The right hon Gentleman has told us that compensation is to be paid in respect of allotments in public parks. Is compensation to be paid for allotments on commons, and, if so, by whom is the compensation payable, especially in the case of regulated commons, for the Conservators have no funds for the purpose? May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an answer?

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Enforce Proper Cultivation.)

(1) The Minister, if in any case he is of opinion after consultation with the agricultural committee (if any) for the area in which the land is situate—

(a) that any land is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or
(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or
(c) that the occupier of land has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
(d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies;
may serve notice, in the case of neglect to execute the necessary works of maintenance, on the tenant or owner, as the case may be, requiring him to execute the necessary works within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing the necessary improvement in the existing method of cultivation, or for securing that the land shall be used for arable cultivation, so, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown, and where compliance with any such directions, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, involves any breach of or non-
compliance with any covenant or condition of the contract of tenancy, the Minister may in the same or any subsequent notice so served direct that any such covenant or condition, so far as it interferes with compliance with such directions, shall be suspended, and may provide for securing to the landlord such payments or other benefits (if any) as the Minister thinks just on account of any profit or benefit derived or expected to be derived by the tenant by reason of the suspension of the covenant or condition or by reason of the execution by the owner of any works of maintenance, and any such provision of the notice shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.

Provided that if any person on whom any notice is served under this Section is aggrieved by the notice, he may within the prescribed time require the question whether the land has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, or whether the production of food on the land can in the national interest be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of the required improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation or whether such improvement or use will injuriously affect the persons interested in the land, or whether the works required to be executed are necessary works of maintenance for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such works is reasonable, to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Part IV. of the Act of 1917, and where any question is so referred to arbitration no action shall be taken for enforcing the directions given by the Minister until the determination of the reference or except in accordance with the terms of the award, and, where the person on whom any notice is served is a tenant, the landlord shall have the same right as the tenant of requiring any question to be referred to arbitration.

(2) Where any notice is served on a tenant, a copy of the notice shall at the same time be served on the landlord.

(3) Where a notice has been served under this Section on the owner or occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice he shall be liable, on summary conviction in respect of each offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further fine not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction.

Provided that—

(a)proceedings for an offence under this Sub-section shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
(b) the Minister shall be entitled to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the reasonable cost of executing such work in a proper and workmanlike manner, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that
381
the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice.

(4) Where a notice has been served on the owner of any land in the occupation of a tenant requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute necessary works of maintenance and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the works in a proper and workmanlike manner, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the works accordingly, and at any time after the works have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Act of 1908.

(5) A notice under this Section shall not require any work to be executed within a period of less than one month from the date of the notice unless in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary that the work should be executed within some shorter period specified in the notice.

(6) If, in the opinion of the Minister, the occupier fails to cultivate the land in accordance with directions so given, the Minister, after the prescribed notice, may, if the occupier in default is a tenant, by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof at the expiration of the current year of the tenancy, not being less than two months after the making of the Order, and, if the occupier in default is not a tenant, enter on and take possession of the land, or of the holding, of which it forms part, for such time, and (either himself or by any person authorised by him) do all such things as appear to him necessary or desirable for the cultivation of the land of which possession has been taken, or for adapting such land for cultivation.

Any such Order of the Minister may contain such provisions as the Minister thinks fit for adjusting the relations of landlord and tenant where the tenancy is determined; and any such provision of the Order shall have effect as if it was contained in the contract of tenancy.

(7) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate of land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in a manner inconsistent with good estate management, and so as to prejudice materially the production of rood thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such inquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by Order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

(a) An Order made under this Sub-section shall not, except where the person appointed by the Order to act
382
as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this Sub-section, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the Order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the Order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made the Order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
(b) An Order made under this Subsection shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, or the garden or grounds attached thereto, or to any land which at the date of the Order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
(c) the Order shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights over the estate or land which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate or land; and
(d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any estate or land under this Section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister;
(e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall he in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this Section.

The Minister may by an Order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the Order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the Order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager.

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court.

The owner of any estate or land in respect of which an Order has been made under this Sub-section may, at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the Order, or after any change in the ownership of the estate or land, apply to the Minister to have the Order appointing the receiver and manager revoked, and if on any such
application the Minister refuses to revoke the Order the owner may appeal against the refusal to the High Court, in accordance with rules of court.

(8) If within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings, fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the land shall be made within three months after the date of requisition by a person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution; and in default of agreement the cost of making such record shall be borne by the Minister and the owner in equal portions.

(9) Where the Minister has entered on any land under this provision he may, after the prescribed notice, let the land or, with the consent of the owner, any part thereof for any term not exceeding five years on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit and at the best rent that, having regard to such terms and conditions, can reasonably be obtained.

Provided that—

(a) before any contract of tenancy is executed by the Minister under this provision a draft thereof shall be sent to the owner of the land and a reasonable opportunity afforded him of objecting to any provision therein; and
(b) a copy of the contract of tenancy shall be sent to such owner as soon as possible after its execution.

(10) Any notice given by the Minister for the purposes of this Section, which directs the suspension of any covenant or condition, shall be sufficient defence to any action or other proceeding in respect of any breach of, or non-compliance with, the covenant or condition so far as the breach or non-compliance is authorised by the notice of suspension.

(11) If, at any time after a contract of tenancy of any land has been created by the Minister, the owner of the land requires the Minister to withdraw, the Minister shall so withdraw as soon as reasonably may be.

(12) When the Minister at any time withdraws from possession of any land of which he has taken possession under this Section—

(a) he shall before withdrawing (except where the withdrawal is required by the owner of the land) give the prescribed notice in writing of his intention to the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land, and such notice shall be given not less than three months previously to the withdrawal by the Minister, and shall expire on one of the half-yearly days customary in the district where the land is situate; and
(b) he may recover from the person then entitled to resume occupation of the land such amount as represents the value to that person of all acts of cultivation or adaptation for culti-
384
vation executed by the Minister; and
(c) the land shall be subject to any tenancy created by the Minister in like manner as if the tenancy had been created by the person who would but for the tenancy have been entitled to resume occupation of the land.

(13) Any person who is interested in any land of which possession is taken under this Section, and who suffers any loss by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section in that behalf, shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose before the expiration of such period, not being less than one year, after the exercise of the powers as may be prescribed by the Minister, be entitled to be paid by the Minister such amount or amounts by way of periodical payments or otherwise as may represent the loss.

(14) The amount recoverable or payable by the Minister under Sub-section (12) or Sub-section (13) of this Section shall be determined in each case in default of agreement by arbitration under Part IV of the Act of 1917.

(15) For the purposes of this Section the expression "necessary works of maintenance" means such of the following works as are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land on which they are to be executed (that is to say):—

(a)The maintenance and clearing of drains, embankments, and ditches;
(b) the maintenance and proper repair of farm roads, fences, stone walls, gates, and hedges;
(c)the execution of repairs to buildings;

Prvided that a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section requiring any person to maintain or clear any drains, embankments, or ditches shall not operate so as to impose on that person any obligation in that behalf if and so far as the execution of the works required is rendered impossible by reason of the subsidence of any land or the blocking of outfalls which are not under the control of that person.

(16) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub section applies growing upon any land, he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and with in the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Sub-section (1) of this Section.

The expression "occupier" in this Subsection means, in the case of any public road, the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and, in the case of unoccupied
land, the person entitled to the occupation thereof.

Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Sub-section is to apply.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT, 1908.


Enactment to be Amended.
Nature of Amendment.


Section forty-eight
…
…
For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."

Amendment made: Leave out the words:


Section forty-eight
…
…
For the words "cultivated as a market garden" there shall be substituted the words "cultivated as a market or allotment garden."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.


ENACTMENTS REPEALED.


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
Extent of Repeal.


7 & 8 Geo. 5, c.46. 
The Corn Production Act, 1917.
Sub-section (1) of Section two; in sub-section (1) of Section nine the words form "(b) that for the purpose of" to the words, "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Sub-section the words "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in "make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorizing the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Sub-section (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this Section or"; Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen.


8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 35.
The Corn Production (Amendment) Act,1918.
The Whole Act.

Amendment made: Leave out the words:

in Sub-section (1) of Section nine the words from "(b) that for the purpose of" to the words "as the case may be," both inclusive, and in the proviso to that Sub-section the words "or whether it is

Brought up, and read the First time.

undesirable in the interest of food pro- duction that the change should apply to any portion of the land included in the notice"; in Sub-section (3)of that Section the words "make such Order as "seems to theme required in the circum- stances, either authorizing the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding,
or determining the tenancy by virtue of the Order"; in Sub-section (4) of that Section the words "If within three months after the Board have entered on any land, the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires"; in Sub-section (9) of that Section the words "in respect of which any notice is served or Order made under this Section or"; and insert instead thereof the words "Section nine."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Bill reported; as amended (on re-committal) considered.

CLAUSE INSERTED ON CONSIDERATION.£(Application of Act to cottage on holdings under Act of 1908.)

Where the occupation of a dwelling-house, forming part of a holding to which the Act of 1908 applies has been allowed by the tenant of the holding to a workmen employed by him in agriculture on the holding, whether the occupation is under a contract of tenancy or not, and the occupation is terminated on account of the termination by the tenant of the holding of the employment of the workman, the provisions of Section seven of this Act shall (subject as hereinafter provided and so far as the same are capable of application) apply as if the dwelling-house were a holding and, where there is no contract of tenancy, as if the person allowing the dwelling-house to be so occupied were the landlord and the occupier were the tenant, and the notice to terminate the occupation were a notice to quit:

Captain FITZROY: I beg to move, after the word "dwelling-house" ["Where the occupation of a dwelling-house"], to insert the words "including a garden attached thereto."
We have had a long discussion about the compensation to be paid to allotment holders, and this particular Clause deals with the compensation to labourers when they are given notice. In the case of labourers who occupy tied houses very often their garden is a thing of great value to them. I think they are entitled to compensation when given notice to quit, and for having to quit their garden. The Clause as it appears on the Paper simply says, "Where a dwelling-house," and later on the words are, "if the dwelling-house or garden." The right hon. Gentleman said he put in those words because it was not necessary as the words "or garden" did not occur in the earlier part of the Amendment. I think it is important that compensation should be paid for the garden as well as the house.

Mr. ROYCE: I beg to second this Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: After the word "dwelling-house" ["apply as if the dwelling-house were a holding, and"] to insert the words "including a garden attached thereto."—[Captain Fitzroy.]
Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN MAIL CONTRACT).

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I beg to move, "That the contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1920, between the Postmaster-General and the London and North-Western Railway Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown from the 28th day of November, 1920, be approved."
If any points be raised, I will reply to them later on.

Mr. LINDSAY: This contract may not seem of much importance from an English point of view, but to Ireland it is a matter of great importance. I do not find fault with the sea service, which is fairly satisfactory, and the House should realise that the North-Western Railway are giving for £100,000 a year, rather more than what the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company gave over twenty years ago. In 1897, when the old contract came into force, the City of Dublin Steam Packet arranged to run the service in just over three hours for a sum of £98,000 a year, and the London and North-Western Railway Company have now arranged to run it in two and three-quarter hours for £100,000 a year. But my objection to the whole thing is that, although the Post Office has made this contract as regards the sea journey, it has been neglectful, apparently, of the land connections. The railway journey from Euston to Holyhead is considerably longer now than when the old contract was made with the City of Dublin Company, and the connections on the other side of the Irish Channel are much worse. I always hesitate to refer in this House to anything connected with my native town, but
I must put forward the case of Belfast. It has a population of 400,000 people, but we do not get our London letters before 10 minutes past 11 in the morning, and in order to catch the outward mail via Kingstown letters have to be posted by 3.15, which, roughly speaking, gives a postal day of four hours. If that were unavoidable I would not complain, but for years we in Belfast have been putting to the Post Office various schemes whereby we should have our letters delivered at nine o'clock in the morning, and the posting time be extended to somewhere about five o'clock. However, the postal authorities have invariably treated all our suggestions with scorn, and we submit that if they argue that our views are wrong and their own right, they ought to be prepared to submit them to some tribunal. I suggest to the Postmaster-General now that it is wrong to have fast steamers and slow trains, because it is an utter waste of money, and I want him to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate this general question of the Irish mail.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not think the hon. Member must enlarge on that topic. The question before the House is the agreement for the conveyance of His Majesty's mail between Holyhead and Kingstown. He has made his point as regards the railway service, but he must not enlarge on it.

Mr. LINDSAY: The schedule to the contract deals with the arrival of the trains at points of departure on this side and the times of arrival of the steamer, and really the whole thing is so mixed up that it is difficult to dissect it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may be, but the agreement deals with the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. The hon. Member has made his point, and I only say that he must not enlarge on that point.

Mr. LINDSAY: If that be the case I will only ask you to allow me to suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should not oppose the inquiry which I advocate, and will then refer to one or two questions connected with the contract itself. The contract contains a provision that if the mail packets between Kingstown and Holyhead do not run in the day service on Sunday, there should be a reduction of
some £10,000 per annum. I would suggest to the Postmaster-General that these services are unnecessary. Then it is provided that the service may be run from the inner harbour at Holyhead, instead of from the Admiralty Pier. The distance from the Admiralty Pier to the inner harbour, as nearly as I have been able to ascertain it, is 1,000 yards; and yet, when the service is to be run from the inner harbour instead of from the pier, ten minutes extra is allowed, which seems to be extraordinary for a mail service. Apparently the London and North Western Railway Company, when they get this contract, are going to back their boats into Holyhead, which is a slovenly way of conducting a mail service, but one which the Post Office has sanctioned for a number of years. In the Stranraer service the boats back out of Stranraer and back in at Larne, thus losing about ten minutes on the trip. Then, again, this contract is for twenty years. Of course, I quite realise that the London and North "Western Railway Company could hardly be expected to provide ships for a shorter period, but it appears to me that, considering the advances in aviation that have been made during the last six or seven years, the mails to Ireland will probably be taken by air before 20 years have passed, and then this contract will have to be lapsed, and the service will have to run at a loss, because there is a Clause providing that if the mails are diverted to other routes the contractors will have to submit to arbitration as to what abatement shall be made in the subsidy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was interested by what the hon. Member has just said about the mail steamers backing in. Was his suggestion that they should go straight in bows on, and then warp round?

Mr. LINDSAY: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think that would be a great hardship on the crews, the engineers and everyone else. I have only crossed over by the Stranraer route once, and do not remember the harbour very well, but I know both Holyhead and Kingstown harbours, and warping there would be very difficult in view of the amount of traffic. It would also be extremely hard on the crews, who between trips naturally want to get a little rest, and also to take the oppor-
tunity of cleaning fires and so forth. Moreover, as they would have to back out and turn, there would not be much in it as regards loss of time. Warping in harbour is really impracticable.

Mr. LINDSAY: For many years past I have seen boats coming in bow on at the Admiralty Pier, landing mails and passengers, and then turning round.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If they do that, it is a great strain on the crews. However, I do not want to pursue the matter. The hon. Member is probably better informed than I am. With regard to the terms of the contract, as far as I know them, I was particularly interested in the question of what was going to happen to the officers and crews of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. I understand, however, that satisfactory arrangements have been made by the London and North Western Railway Company, and they are practically going to take over the whole of the personnel, so no sailor is going to lose his job, which is very satisfactory. The courtesy shown by everyone and the efficiency is very high indeed. The vessels are of an extraordinarily useful type in war time. They were very useful in the last War, and made very handy transport steamers. But that ought not to blind us to the fact that there is a great future for air transport of mails, and this route is ideal for that purpose, and without a doubt in quite a few years£I think within five years£the commercially most efficient method of carrying the mails, as regards speed and so on, will be by air. I want to ask the Postmaster-General and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) whether any commercial air companies were invited to tender for the carriage of mails by air either now or in the near future. I am very much afraid the Post Office is not nearly so alive to the importance and practicability of carrying mails by air as other countries are and as they ought to be. The number of mails flown with letters by the mail-carrying aeroplanes in the United States is very great indeed. It is a regular thing between many of the inland towns, and I am afraid our Post Office is lagging behind in this matter and is not putting forward its best efforts in research in this matter as we have a right to expect. This contract provides
a subsidy of £100,000 a year for 20 years for carrying the mails between these two Governments, and that subsidy would be of extraordinary value to an aircraft company or group of companies who could form a syndicate for the purpose.
A subsidy which is a moderate one for shipping is a very great subsidy for aircraft, because, for the distance covered and the time, aircraft are infinitely cheaper than water-borne traffic. The advantage commercially in favour of aircraft, either lighter or heavier than air, is getting greater and greater almost hourly as progress is made. It is a tremendous mistake if we have in any way bound ourselves in this contract to carry the mails by water for 20 years. I know in Clause 7 there is a rather complicated paragraph which says the Postmaster-General if he shall deem it expedient in the public interest that any new arrangement shall come into force whereby the quantity of mails or number of officers for the time being required to be conveyed shall be substantially decreased, the contract may be modified and, I believe, even cancelled. There are provisions in Clause 28 for arbitration. Have the legal or business advisers of the Post Office been consulted as to whether an advantageous offer by an aeroplane or seaplane company could be considered in the public interest as a reason for annulling the contract and diverting part of the subsidy to air-borne mails? The Government is giving wholly insufficient encouragement to the commercial development of aviation. The Minister for Air has also the Portfolio as Minister for War, and I feel he is too much engaged in aggressive activities to pay attention to the development of air matters, which I regret profoundly. Has the Post Office considered the possibility of the carriage of mails by air? And the Fame thing applies to passengers and perishable goods. The big lighter than air craft have a lifting capacity of fifty tons, and big aeroplanes lift ten tons. In a few years' time, if we are still bound for twenty years to carry these mails by the Holyhead sea route, we will be the laughing stock of the world.

Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: I have not very much to say about one company or the other, but I was greatly concerned about the employés
of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. When I heard of the possibility of that company losing the mail contract, I felt that something should be done in the interests of those men, who deserve so well of the country for all they did during the War. I made inquiries and I am glad to say I received a letter from Sir Thomas Williams, the General Manager of the London and North Western Railway Company, which is a credit to that company and a great source of satisfaction to the employés of the City of Dublin Company. I should like to read some extracts from that letter, as it will in future be some kind of record—
Relative to the men who are now employed by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company I would like to express the obligations of my directors to you for giving them the opportunity to state their intentions in case the Government accept their tender for the carriage of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. The question has already been raised by Mr. Havelock Wilson, M.P., and discussed with him by one of the chief officers of this company, who gave an undertaking that if this company's tender is accepted the London and North Western Company are prepared to take over at Holyhead, and even at Kingstown the men under sixty years of age, and to consider on merit those cases of men over sixty years of age. With regard to the latter it was pointed out that the number must be very small, and that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company have their obligations, particularly in regard to men who have been in their service for many years. … I have much pleasure in giving you on behalf of my directors the same undertaking that was given to Mr. Havelock Wilson, and if there are any other points on which you would like further information I will be very pleased to discuss them with you at any time and place convenient to you.
I have had the pleasure of discussing various points with Sir Thomas Williams, and I am perfectly satisfied that the London and North Western Railway Co. are going to do everything that one could expect the company to do with those men whom they are taking over. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: This is not so simple a matter as might at first sight appear. In aviation I always think that we are falling into the mistake of presuming too much and giving too little, and that people will be discouraged with the whole subject unless we put the facts more fully before them. The whole question of air mails is a diffi-
cult one, because the aeroplane is not an efficient traveller at night, whereas the ordinary traffic across the sea goes on in the dark, and until we educate people to post their letters in the morning, which we shall never be able to do, then this evening service is as satisfactory a thing as one can get. In the London and Paris air service there is very little advantage. The needs of the community are met by the ordinary traffic. But, provided you do get a night service as well as a day service, there is no doubt that an air service can be useful in getting together letters from main sources and sending them on at once and avoiding a great deal of waste of time. The whole question of air mails is one which concerns the general policy of the Postmaster-General. Are you to look upon the carriage of mails as purely a business proposition, or can you use the money voted for the Post Office indirectly to benefit the nation in other ways? We have been told recently by the military authorities, the chief of the Air Staff especially, that an efficient air force must necessarily depend on efficient commercial aviation. Therefore it is to the national advantage to see that somehow commercial aviation in this country should flourish. At present nothing is being done to encourage it. Though there have been recommendations by advisory committees that there should be subsidies these have not materialised, and in the present state of our finances I do not think they ever will. So commercial aviation looks to the Post Office as one of the few helps that it is ever likely to get.
With regard to Ireland, I do think that a special appeal ought to be made to the Postmaster-General to do his best to try a service as soon as possible, because the difficulties between the two countries, which are largely centred on ethnological and other causes, owe a great part of their existence to the Irish Sea. If we could do away with that there would be no Irish problem. The better we know each other the less likely we are to quarrel. By increasing the speed of communications we draw the two countries nearer together.
I notice in this contract that Clause 7 allows the Postmaster-General practically to do what he likes with regard to breaking or changing the mode of transport. It is a most extraordinary Clause and seems to me to redound to the credit
of the Postmaster-General. I think we ought to have a word from the Postmaster-General that, if possible, he will divert some of the mails along the new route.

Sir R. THOMAS: The last speaker has inquired whether this is a business proposition. I think this tender is evidence of that fact. The City of Dublin Company put in a tender for £150,000 for ten years, and the London and North Western Railway Company a tender for £100,000 for twenty years. As a business man, that strikes me as a very good business proposition, and the Government have accepted the only possible tender. One hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to the way the London and North Western Railway Company steamers have to navigate the harbour of Holyhead. I happen to be a resident of Holyhead, and know something about the manœuvring of these boats. There is no necessity whatever for the boats to come into the harbour stern foremost. They can come in bow foremost and swing round quite naturally, and then go out bow foremost. The hon. and gallant Member for Anglesey (Sir O. Thomas) has referred to the undertaking given by the London and North Western Railway Company to take on all the employés of the City of Dublin Company. That is satisfactory. As a result of the railway company getting this contract all their repairs to boats will be done at Holyhead, which will mean additional employment. The practice of the City of Dublin Company has been to send ail the boats from Holyhead for repairs. It is therefore obviously to the advantage of Holyhead that the contract should go to the London and North Western Company.

Mr. WIGNALL: Up to a few hours ago the Labour party had been preparing for a tremendous fight against the confirmation of this contract, simply because we were concerned on behalf of the labour employed by the City of Dublin Company. A letter has been read which gives certain assurances. When I tell you we have been at work from 3.30 to nearly 9.30 to-day, you will realise that the question has not been as simple as it appears. I am glad to say that I can spare the House from the infliction of a speech. I hold in my hand an agreement which we have succeeded
in concluding with the London and North Western Company, and it covers all the sea-faring men, cooks, and stewards, the labourers at Kingstown and the whole of the men employed at Holyhead. This, I am glad to say, will meet the difficulty with one exception, and that is the case of the men over 60 years of age.

Sir R. THOMAS: There are only eleven of them.

Mr. WIGNALL: Only eleven! If you were one of the eleven, you would realise the importance. It is in regard to those eleven men that the main difficulty has arisen, and they are the men in whom we are now most concerned.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not a matter for the City of Dublin Company to find compensation for the men who have served them all these years?

Mr. WIGNALL: I quite agree, but if the hon. Member were one of the directors of the City of Dublin Company, he might be inclined to say, "We have lost the contract, and have nothing to pay with." It is necessary to face this position. We have got a guarantee that the cases of these eleven men will be considered individually. On the general merits of the case, we have accepted that Clause, and, with the exception of these eleven men, the agreement I hold in my hand covers the whole position with universal satisfaction. The position of the workmen will, as a result of our negotiations, be better in the future as regards both hours of labour and remuneration. Therefore, the Labour party withdraw that opposition.

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Member for the Cromac Division of Belfast (Mr. Lindsay) raised a question as to the speed of the service. That is a matter not for the Post Office, but for the Ministry of Transport, and I am not in a position to make any comment on it. I will however mention that to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LINDSAY: I was told distinctly it had nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: And I have been assured that it has. With regard to entry into the inner harbour, ten minutes will be saved thereby, and the transfer of the
mails will be greatly expedited. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the question of air mails. I can assure him that this is not being overlooked by the Post Office. Air mails are at present more or less experimental. There are now air mails to Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels, but the atmosphere is more favourable for them. There is less cloud and fog than on the route from this country to Ireland. In the United States of America, too, they are able to work under more favourable conditions. These distances over land are very much greater than is possible in this part of Europe, and in the case of landings they run much less danger.
Not only that, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the essence of the Irish mail is that it should go by night. At present, of course, night flying cannot be done. I know it was done during the War under exceptional circumstances, but it cannot be expected to be done now, and in fact it is impossible to be done at the present moment. I have had considerable discussions with those interested in the flying industry, and they admit that, as far as that is concerned—the most important point for the mail service—it is impracticable for the moment, and many of them are also of the opinion that they must depend more on the carriage of goods than on the carriage of mails. Clause 7 has been referred to by various hon. Members. In case in the next 20 years the mail service by air becomes a practical proposition, there is provision made in this Clause for making a corresponding reduction in the amount paid to the London and North Western Railway Company for the fewer mails they carry. I think I have met all the points that have been raised, and I hope the House will ratify this agreement now, as the present contract expires at midnight on Saturday or early on Sunday morning.

Mr. MOLES: I regret very much the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to the railway time. There is, of course, an enormous advantage in the rapid transport of mails to communities such as my hon. Friends and I represent, and I think it is a reproach to the right hon. Gentleman that he comes down here and asks this House to give its endorsement to a contract which, while upon the one hand it speeds up the sea-borne por-
tion of the journey to the extent of 15 minutes, more than throws away that advantage in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman has in effect told us that he will not even consider a representation upon it at all, and he says the railway portion of the journey is a matter for the Minister of Transport, but I think he is mistaken and that he has himself a function in the matter. He has a right to make terms with the London and North Western Railway Company in so far as the carriage of the mails is concerned, and he has equal power when he enters into his contract. He does exercise these powers now with the Great Northern Railway Company, who carry the mails in Ireland, so that it will not do to tell the House it is a matter solely for the Minister of Transport. If the right hon. Gentleman makes that suggestion, I am bound to say£although I do not like doing so£that he does not understand the duties that he is entrusted by this House to carry out. I regret to make such an observation to him, but only quite recently he gave me an answer which was the most obvious shuffling. He is aware of the constant representations that have been made from commercial bodies and from chambers of commerce all over Ireland, who have appealed to him again and again and have never got from him other answer than the kind of thing he has given to this House just now. We cannot force the right hon. Gentleman's hands. We would not, of course, desire to defeat a contract of this kind, because that would hang up the thing altogether. All that we can do is to protest against the attitude he has taken up, and I do so as strongly as I can, and I am sure I have the good sense of the House with me.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I rise only to express my cordial agreement with the remarks which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and I think this contract should not be allowed to pass without making it perfectly clear that everybody in this House recognises the services which have been rendered by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company which carried these mails so efficiently for so many years. I think the efficiency they showed was practically unparalleled in this country, and the greatest courtesy was at all times shown by all the officials from the highest to the lowest. I regret that circumstances should have made it
necessary to accept the competitive tender, because naturally, this being an Irish company, most of my countrymen would have preferred to see the contract remain in their hands, but if they have found themselves unable to compete with the London and North Western Railway Company in this matter, the fault is entirely due to the Government for the manner in which they treated the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. They lost two of their steamers during the War when they were requisitioned by the Government. The Government did not pay them the compensation, but compelled them to indulge in very costly litigation, and it is the fault of the Government entirely that the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company has been placed in the position in which it finds itself to-day. I understand litigation is still going on. That, of course, is no fault of the Postmaster-General, who is in no way responsible. Perhaps if the Secretary to the Treasury could be induced to speak to-night, he could throw some light on the manner in
which that company has been treated by the Government. We have no alternative left now. A contract has to be made in some form, but I do not think this contract should be allowed to pass without there being expressed from this Bench the most cordial support of the tribute which was paid by the hon. and gallant Member.

Resolved, "That the contract, dated the 11th day of November, 1920, between the Postmaster-General and the London and North Western Railway Company for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails between Holyhead and Kingstown from the 28th day of November, 1920, be approved."

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven minutes before Twelve o'clock.